Complexities of Managing a Mobile Phone Ban in the Digitalized Schools’ Classroom

Abstract

This longitudinal qualitative study followed a teacher team at an upper secondary school during the implementation of a mobile phone ban during class, which was an initiative the team had jointly decided upon. Data consist of audio-recorded weekly team meetings, during which the teachers discussed their initiative. The teachers’ implementation strategy was to inform the students about the ban at the start of the semester, and to collect their mobile phones before starting each class with the motivation that the ban would improve the learning environment. This strategy failed. Exceptions were made to the ban for several reasons. The collection procedure was cumbersome, time-consuming, and caused negative tensions between teachers and students. The team discussions made it apparent that with the teachers’ consent, the students’ mobile phones were already used as pedagogical tools complementary to other digital technologies in class.

Keywords:

• Secondary education
• mobile devices
• teaching strategies
• mobile phone ban

Introduction

The ongoing digitalization of schools has made internet access and a range of digital tools (such as learning management systems (LMS), computers, tablets, and interactive whiteboards) typical in many schools’ infrastructure for learning (Guribye, 2015). Furthermore, one-to-one computing initiatives (1:1), in which every student is equipped with a digital device as their personal tool in school, are becoming standard worldwide (Islam & Grönlund, 2016). In such technology-rich classrooms, teachers need to consider a host of different aspects of using technology in relation to their teaching (Cerratto Pargman & Jahnke, 2019). However, technology provided by schools is not the only technology available to students today. Mobile phones have become an integral part of modern-day society and an indispensable part of many upper secondary students’ everyday lives (Xiao, 2020) which has led students to bring their private mobile phones to school and use them in class (Gao et al., 2014; Sahlström et al., 2019; Tindell & Bohlander, 2012).

Despite the digitalization of school practice, where teachers and students are expected to use various technologies to enrich teaching and learning, students’ personal mobile phones have not yet been generally accepted as tools for learning purposes in school (Selwyn & Aagaard, 2021). The understanding that mobile phones are a source of problems in educational settings, e.g., causing distraction and disturbances, is predominant in the public discourse (Ott, 2017) and also among educators (Christensen & Knezek, 2018; Flanigan & Babchuk, 2022) which, to some extent, has a negative influence on students’ school performance (Beland & Murphy, 2016). Digital distractions, such as students’ engagement in off-task use during class (e.g., Tindell & Bohlander, 2012; Wood et al., 2018), have become routine during class (Beeri & Horowitz, 2020) and challenging for teachers’ classroom management (Blikstad-Balas, 2012). Even when students use their mobile phones for schoolwork, they risk being sidetracked into off-task use (Chen & Yan, 2016). Research emphasizes that the primary challenge for teachers in managing the classroom is the blurred boundary between students’ social lives and their academic pursuits (Dinsmore, 2019). A common way to mitigate off-task use and digital distractions in schools has been to implement policies (Finn & Ledbetter, 2013) forbidding all non-educational use of mobile phones in class. Since August 2022, the Swedish school law states that mobile phone use is only permitted in class on the teachers’ initiative or as a pedagogical adaptation for students with special educational needs (SFS 2010:800, 2022). As teachers are those who implement policies and rules in their classrooms, it is relevant to increase current understanding of the implications that a mobile phone ban might have on teachers’ practice (Gao et al., 2014; Parsons, 2017).

Background

In addition to concerns about digital distractions and off-task use of mobile phones in class (Santos et al., 2018), previous studies highlight impact on students’ academic performance. Students who engage in off-task use (e.g., Chen & Yan, 2016; Glass & Kang, 2019; Kuznekoff et al., 2015) and frequently use their mobile phones for non-educational purposes during class have earned lower course grades (Bjornsen & Archer, 2015; Lepp et al., 2015). As a consequence, banning students’ mobile phones has been suggested as a low-cost alternative for schools to increase students’ academic performance (Beland & Murphy, 2016).

Mobile phones in educational settings

The mobile phone has been shown to have pedagogical potential as a tool for teaching and learning (Crompton et al., 2017; Fu & Hwang, 2018; Sung et al., 2016) associated with several functionalities, such as access to the internet, the camera and calculator (Osakwe et al., 2017; Thomas et al., 2014). Access to information is perceived as highly beneficial, improving the efficiency of students’ schoolwork (Chen & Yan, 2016; Fu & Hwang, 2018; Osakwe et al., 2017; Thomas et al., 2014). When mobile phones are actively integrated into classroom practice as learning tools, teachers have reported positive teaching experiences (Kousloglou & Syrpi, 2018; Rashid & Asghar, 2016) recognizing the pedagogical potentials (Morris & Sarapin, 2020; Sung et al., 2016). At the same time, they worry that mobile phones will have disruptive effects on pedagogical practice (Nikolopoulou, 2020). Paradoxically, the perceived teaching benefits of using mobile phones also give rise to the teachers’ main concern: constant connectivity and quick, easy access to information on the internet simultaneously make it just as easy for the students to engage in off-task use and to access inappropriate information with the potential to increase cheating and cyberbullying (Thomas et al., 2014; Tindell & Bohlander, 2012; Wood et al., 2018). For example, Alakurt and Yilmaz (2021) reported that even if teachers themselves had integrated their own mobile phones into both their private and professional lives, they still leant toward banning or restricting the use of mobile phones for students in school because of the risk for students’ off-task use during class, and to prevent cyberbullying.

Mobile phone bans and classroom practice

There is a limited number of studies exploring how teachers uphold a mobile phone ban or the consequences of a ban for classroom practice. Research has found that in schools with explicit policies banning mobile phones, neither students nor teachers necessarily abide by the rules, and teachers accept the presence of mobile phones if they do not disrupt the learning environment (Charles, 2012). In addition, teachers and students have reported the inefficacy of policies limiting students’ mobile phone use during class (Gao et al., 2014, 2017; Morris & Sarapin, 2020). One reason is that the policies have not been consistently implemented and thus did not effectively prevent students from using their mobile phones during class (Langmia & Glass, 2014; Selwyn et al., 2018). For example, students’ covert use of mobile phones behind books or under desks could pass unnoticed by teachers (Asplund et al., 2018; Olin-Scheller et al., 2021). Firmly enforcing restrictions on mobile phone use may also result in students opposing the restrictions, creating a power struggle between teachers and students (Dinsmore, 2019). Instead of enforcing restrictions, research has indicated that teachers should adopt a more permissive style of discipline (Beeri & Horowitz, 2020).

Teachers are in research identified as key agents in implementing educational policy in the classroom (Gao et al., 2014; Parsons, 2017), for example, the regulation of mobile phone use. Researchers have even proposed that teachers should design rules both for students’ on-task and off-task use (Chen & Yan, 2016; Kearney et al., 2015; Morris & Sarapin, 2020). It is then important to enhance our knowledge of how teachers are dealing with the implementation of mobile phone policies, for example a ban, in their classroom practice. Especially so when a ban is imposed in a practice which is highly digitalized.

Aim and research questions

The aim of this study is to explore the implementation of a teacher-initiated ban of students’ mobile phones during class. The ban was implemented in a school with an advanced digital infrastructure, in which teachers are committed to use digital tools for both pedagogical and administrative purposes.

The following research questions were addressed:

• How do the teachers manage the mobile phone ban?

• What concerns are teachers raising when implementing the ban?

Method and material

Research design

The study applied a longitudinal qualitative study design by following a teacher team at an upper secondary school during the implementation of a mobile phone ban. The study draws on methods for engaged scholarship. Van de Ven (2007) defines engaged scholarship as “a participative form of research for obtaining the different perspectives of key stakeholders (researchers, users, clients, sponsors, and practitioners) in studying complex problems” (p. 9). This research approach has the merit of producing situated knowledge in collaboration between practitioners and academics who inform each other (Medaglia, 2012).

The second author of this paper was a member of the teacher team, and thus one of the eight participating teachers. At the school, he held the position of upper secondary lecturer¹ and had the task of supporting and evaluating the use of digital technology at the school. The teacher team’s initiative to implement a ban on students’ mobile phones in class became one of the activities he was involved in. Mindful that engaged scholarship runs the risk of the research being affected by the engaged scholars’ bias, we nevertheless argue that the positive tradeoffs of using engaged scholarship (e.g., enables participation, situated knowledge) outweigh possible disadvantages.

The context and participants of the study

The data was collected in an upper secondary school, located in a mid-sized city in Sweden. The approximately 1200 students (16–19 years) at the school livedin both urban and rural areas and came from all socioeconomic groups, but mainly from the broad middle class. The school can be described as a 1:1 school, as the school equipped each student with a personal laptop computer. In addition, the school had internet connectivity (Wi-Fi) for students and teachers, a Learning Management System (LMS), and digital textbooks in some of the curriculum areas. Thus, digital technology was used regularly as a fundamental tool for learning.

The participants in the study consisted of eight certified teachers, in this paper named as teacher A-G, who were all part of the same teaching team on a building and construction program at the school. The program included both practical subjects (curriculum areas), such as building and construction and physical education and health, and academic subjects, such as Swedish, English, and math. The program’s practical classes took place in a construction hall at the school or outdoors in the immediate surroundings, whereas the academic subjects were taught in classrooms. The teachers all taught the program’s two first-year classes and represented a mix of school subjects, spanning practical and academic subjects. Some of the teachers taught both practical and academic subjects, and some taught in one or the other. All the participating teachers were informed of the aim and research methods and consented to participate in the study. The approximately 50 students in the classes subjected to the implementation of the mobile phone ban were both native Swedish and immigrant adolescents.

At the time when the study was conducted, individual schools had the autonomy to set their specific mobile phone policy. Sometimes, as at the school in this study, there was no overall policy, and the teachers were left to determine whether mobile phones should or should not be used during class. The initiative in the present study to ban students’ mobile phones during class was the result of informal discussions between teachers at the school. One of the researchers in the study—the upper secondary lecturer—was part of these discussions and a member of the teacher team. The teachers involved in the informal discussions decided to submit to the agenda for the upcoming team meeting the proposition that a) they would initiate a ban on students’ use of mobile phones during class at the start of the fall semester, and b) that the implementation process would be documented as a research study from the start. Thus, at the next team meeting (Team discussion 1), the documentation of the implementation process began. Hence, the two first documented team discussions took place before the actual implementation of the ban. These two team discussions involved the teachers raising issues they had experienced regarding students’ use of mobile phones in class, and the collegial suggestion to implement a mobile phone ban after the summer break when the new students would begin. During the second team discussion, the eight teachers unanimously settled on the decision to implement the proposed mobile phone ban, totally restricting all mobile phone use during class in the upcoming school year 2018–2019. The decision to implement such restrictions was thus based on the teachers’ own previous experiences of dealing with students’ mobile phones in their classes and their pedagogical beliefs that a total ban would bring positive outcomes for the classroom environment and students’ learning. The ban was implemented as an oral, but formal policy, where the teachers informed the students about the mobile phone ban on the first day of school.

Data and data collection

The primary data consists of 13 audio-recorded discussions in the teacher team, carried out between May 2018 and June 2019. The team discussions took place during the teaching teams’ ordinary weekly team meetings. The purpose of these meetings was to give teachers the opportunity to meet and coordinate and plan their teaching, exchange information, and discuss pedagogical questions and issues related to the students. In the period in which the mobile phone ban was implemented the discussions naturally focused on issues relating to the ban. The discussion had a formative evaluation approach to engage the teachers in evaluating, reflective discussions regarding the implementation.

The team discussions were semi-structured, allowing the teachers to reflect and discuss the implementation of the ban and raise their concerns about managing it. The discussions also allowed the teachers to challenge and elaborate on each other’s statements as suggested by Bryman (2016). The researchers moderated the team discussions. The second author of this paper was present at all team discussions, and the first author was present at the first and fourth team discussions. The role of the moderator was to start the team discussions (e.g., asking questions such as “how is it progressing?” and “has there been any challenges?”) and to enable further and more in-depth discussions. The team discussions were not restricted by any time limit. The discussions ranged between 8 and 29 min (in total, 201 min). The number of teachers present at the team meetings varied over the course of the school semester, due to practical matters that caused the teacher’s temporal absence (such as sick leave or caring for sick children at home), see Table 1.

Table 1. Overview of team discussions.

Team discussion	Recorded data	Participating teachers
1.	29 min	B, E, F, G, H
2.	14 min	A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H
3.	8 min	B, C, D, F, G, H
4.	20 min	A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H
5.	21 min	A, B, D, E, F, G, H
6.	10 min	A, B, C, E, F, G, H
7.	18 min	A, B, D, E, F, G, H
8.	11 min	B, F, G, H
9.	11 min	B, E, F, G, H
10.	9 min	A, B, D, E, F, G, H
11.	11 min	B, D, E, F, G, H
12.	20 min	B, D, E, F, G, H
13.	19 min	A, C, D, E, F, G, H

Data analysis

Once the team discussions had been conducted, the 13 audio recordings were transcribed verbatim and anonymized for analysis. The transcribed interviews were analyzed using a thematic analysis with an inductive approach as a method of identifying, analyzing and reporting patterns within the data without imposing theoretical perspectives or preconceived categories (Braun & Clarke, 2012; Bryman, 2016).

The first step of the thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2012) was to get familiar with the data through transcribing, reading, and rereading the team discussions. A systematic coding of statements in the data was then conducted. Software for computer-assisted qualitative data analysis (NVivo version 12) was used to scaffold the process of identifying interesting and representative features in the data in relation to the research questions. The first two authors conducted this initial open coding independently. In the next step, their coding was compared and arranged systematically for potential themes. The identified codes and emergent themes were then discussed with all four of the researchers involved, to achieve a mutual understanding and enhance cross coder reliability (Cohen et al., 2018). The emerging themes were reviewed and refined to reflect recurring and significant content of the team discussions. The analysis resulted in six themes named to reflect the content.

Results

In analyzing the empirical material regarding how the teachers managed the mobile phone ban and what concerns they were raising during the implementation the following six themes emerged: 1) Motives and strategy for implementing the ban; 2) Making exceptions; 3) Students’ responses to the implementation of the ban; 4) Relationships and trust; 5) Mobile phones as a tool for learning; 6) Other occurring disturbances, see Table 2.

Table 2. Overview of the coding.

Themes and categories	Number of codes	Occurrence in team discussions (total)
Motives and strategy for implementing the ban (total for theme)		6
Experiences of mobile free classes	2	1
Motives for a ban	18	6
Prerequisites—the ban	10	4
Re-introduce a ban	16	1
Strategies for implementation	22	2
Making exceptions (total for theme)		13
A pedagogical tool	44	12
The collection procedure	65	11
Students’ responses to the implementation of the ban (total for theme)		12
Counter strategies	23	8
Positive response	30	9
The use of mobile phones despite the ban	13	7
Relationships and trust (total for theme)		13
Affected relationship	38	8
Difficulties in trusting the students	8	2
Students resisting the ban	27	3
Tensions	18	7
Mobile phones as a tool for learning (total for theme)		11
A part of the infrastructure for learning	20	9
A tool for schoolwork	28	11
Other occurring disturbances (total for theme)	49	12

Table 2 displays the coding categories merged into themes. The column Occurrence in team discussions presents the total number of team discussions in which the categories were discussed. The column Number of Codes presents all the number of occurrences of coding categories in the data. There are categories for all themes except for Other occurring disturbances, in which there was a large variety in the codes and these were summarized directly into one theme.

The sections below will detail and exemplify the findings organized into these themes. Excerpts from the empirical material have been translated into English from the original Swedish.

Motives and strategy for implementing the ban

The theme was addressed in six of the 13 team discussions. The teachers were concerned with creating a learning climate with minimal disturbances and off-task activities. This was illustrated during Team discussion 1:

Teacher H: Perhaps one could say that developing study techniques is the main purpose. To get the students to use their mobile phones in a productive way instead of distractions. So, it is really about studying techniques to gain a quiet learning climate.

Teacher E: Actually, because that is where it’s lacking when you see … that’s when you get angry at the mobile phone when you see someone who may have just started doing something and then ‘ping ping’.

Teacher B: A proper study technique leads to a quiet classroom environment.

Teacher H: Yes.

Teacher G: And increased study result.

Teacher B: goal fulfilment.

Teacher H: And then it will be more fun to go to school if you succeed better. That is a lot. We will see.

The teachers also expressed concerns about students opposing the ban and that the school’s laptop could become a distraction source. As one of the teachers expressed:

There is a risk is that the laptop, instead, will be, as well as, that they will do everything there instead, they may not have Snapchat there. (Team discussion 1, Teacher G)

During the second team discussion, the teachers jointly decided to implement a mobile phone ban restricting all use of mobile phones during class without exception for the new students on their first day in school at the beginning of the fall semester. A strategy was formed to implement and uphold the ban. The teachers agreed that implementing the ban right from the start of the semester, would be an excellent way to gain the students’ acceptance of the mobile phone ban:

And then it will be so much easier to start [implement the ban] with a new class, in year one. During the first hours, they will do precisely as we say. There are never any problems; they do not know each other, so there will not be any question about it, it [the ban] will be just an ordinary thing. (Team discussion 1, Teacher B)

The teachers further highlighted the importance of emphasizing to the students that the teachers as a team were convinced that a ban would contribute to a positive learning environment. The following quotation summarizes this discussion:

We need to inform them that the ban is actually about improving the learning environment. (Team discussion 1, Teacher B)

One way to uphold the ban was to find a routine that could keep the mobile phones away from the classroom:

Yes, we need to find a routine for that; how could we keep the phones away from the students…. (Team discussion 2, Teachers H)

During the second team discussion, the teachers devised a procedure to collect mobile phones at the beginning of each class. This raised additional concerns regarding practicalities, such as how and where to securely store the collected mobile phones and whether the teachers should collect all the students’ mobile phones at the beginning of the class or if the students should independently submit their mobile phones. This discussion resulted in a collective agreement to collect all the students’ mobile phones at the beginning of each class and return them at the end of the same class.

Making exceptions

The analysis shows that implementing the ban turned out to be a challenge. From the first day, the implementation was played out differently in the individual teacher’s classrooms. The teachers made their own interpretations of the implementation, more individually modified than the general approach they had agreed on. The teachers expressed two main reasons for making exceptions to the collection procedure which they had all expressed to be crucial for implementing and upholding the ban; the actual collection procedure became an obstacle, and the mobile phones were used as a pedagogical tool.

The collection procedure

The teachers had initially expressed that they thought the collection would be an easy-going procedure. However, collecting mobile phones turned out to be more challenging than they had foreseen. The joint decision to collect all mobile phones at the beginning of each class became an obstacle for the teachers in a variety of ways that led to exceptions being made.

The procedure of collecting mobile phones was a subsequent theme discussed during eleven of the 13 team discussions, where the teachers described the collection as challenging, time-consuming, stressful, and often involving conflict and negotiation. The following quote illustrates the teachers’ sentiments about collecting mobile phones:

I do not like collecting them, but I do like it when they do not use them. I think it is a stressful moment when you walk around with it [the box], and you know there will be at least one conflict, maybe more. However, it is nice when they are not used for the wrong things. (Team discussion 12, Teacher G)

However, some of the teachers who did not strictly implement the collection strategy expressed that they did not perceive the procedure as challenging. As one teacher expressed:

… I think it has gone pretty well, then, of course; I have not been so strict every time. (Team discussion 8, Teacher B)

In these eleven team discussions, the teachers also highlighted common reasons for not collecting the students’ mobile phones at the beginning of each class. In particular, the reason for not collecting the students’ mobile phones was that the teachers forgot to collect them or that the teacher modified the “standard” procedure of collecting all mobile phones. As one teacher explains:

Yes, I have collected them. If it is in the pocket, […], it will be collected, but if it is in the bag, I find it to be okay. Some students find it really uncomfortable to hand it over. (Team discussion 6, Teacher G)

The mobile phone as a pedagogical tool

During the early stage of the implementation (Team discussions 3, 4, and 5), the teachers expressed exceptions to the agreement of collecting the students’ mobile phones at the beginning of each class because the student laptops provided by the school had not yet been delivered when the school semester started, and that mobile phones were used as pedagogical tools in the classroom:

Yes, no. I will start [collecting the mobile phones] when they get their computers, and when we are in the construction hall. (Team discussion 3, Teacher B)

During twelve of the 13 team discussions, the teachers recurrently talked about exceptions they had made since the mobile phones functioned as a pedagogical tool in the classroom and were used by the students. This led to a recurring pedagogical dilemma for the teachers:

I would say that I think that it is pretty good that we have that routine, with no mobile phones. Then you get to the dilemma that they may want to take a photo of something they finished. They should calculate something. Then maybe you must make an exception, sometimes. It is on those occasions. (Team discussion 7, Teacher A)

Over time, the teachers successively reported that they made more and more exceptions to uphold the ban. Finally, after four months, toward the end of the semester, the teachers concluded that they would lift the joint ban. The reason was that none of the teachers truly upheld it. Instead, they agreed that each teacher should make their own rules for mobile phone use during class and that the ban could be reintroduced if mobile phone use was to become too distracting. No general ban was reinstated during that school year. Nevertheless, approximately six months later during team discussion 13, several teachers recalled that the ban had been worthwhile after all and that it should be reintroduced from the start of the coming school year. However, it would then allow higher flexibility for each teacher to use mobile phones in their teaching. The following exchange summarizes the teams’ decision:

Teacher G: The plan is to ban, we always collect them, but we also distribute them [again] when we feel that today we will actually use them with pedagogical purpose?

Teacher H: Yes, that is the foundation. (Team discussion 13)

Students’ responses to the implementation of the ban

A recurring theme in twelve of the thirteen team discussions was how the students responded to the ban. During the first weeks, the teachers stated that most students complied with the mobile phone ban, even expressing that they appreciated it. One of the teachers recalled how students had expressed a positive response:

Pretty good to get rid of it [the mobile phone] for a while. Actually, yes, it was. In fact, there were several of those comments in the class. (Team discussion 4, Teacher B)

In addition, some teachers stated that at the end of the class, some students even forgot to take their mobile phones back from the storage box:

Every lesson, I have had someone that forgot. The box has never been completely empty. (Team discussion 4, Teacher G)

Even though most students complied with the ban, the teachers stated that the students became less positive about the ban over time. During the 13 team discussions all teachers, at some point, expressed that students’ resistance to the ban was challenging. A month into the semester, during team discussion 5, some teachers reported that they had found the students using mobile phones surreptitiously. These teachers described the students’ different strategies to avoid handing in their mobile phones. The following discussion illustrates one of the strategies, handing in empty phone cases, that the students came up with:

Teacher D: It has also emerged that a few students only hand in the mobile phone case.

Teacher F: Oh!

Teacher D: Yes, indeed, so they have taken it out of the wallet case and just handed it in. And you notice it later, after three minutes, when they sit with their mobile phone. Did you not hand it in? Oops…. Then you must take out the box again. So, do check if the mobile phone is in the phone case. (Team discussion 5)

Another strategy was that the students told the teacher they had left their mobile phones in their locker:

I had some students who said that they left it in the locker, and they probably did, but some say so, and they have not, since it [the mobile phone] appears later on. (Team discussion 5, Teacher H)

Another, more radical resistance from students was that they kept texting while mobile phones were collected by the teacher or that they simply refused to hand them in.

Relationships and trust

In eight of the team discussions, the teachers expressed that upholding the ban affected their relationship with the students. As described in the previous section, most students complied with the ban, but not all. The teachers argued that it was difficult to establish a good relationship with the students who did not comply with the ban. This was primarily expressed by those teachers who reported that they rigorously stuck to the rule of collecting the students’ mobile phones. In seven of the team discussions, the teachers also described the procedure of collecting mobile phones as causing tension between the teacher and the student. The tensions mainly arose during the collection procedure, when the teachers challenged the students who did not comply with the ban. This is illustrated in the following quotation:

… It is difficult to build good relationships when you start every class with a big, like huge discussion, where someone says one thing, and another one says something else, and you know that you are the one that is correct. And it is not your fault that the discussion arises because the students should just hand it [the mobile phone] in, especially when we have the regulation on our side. (Team discussion 6, Teacher H)

The students’ responses to resist the ban did not only affect the teacher-student relationship in general; more specifically, it affected the teacher’s trust in students. The trust was affected if they caught a student using the mobile phone after the procedure of collection, thus exposing the student’s insincerity. As one of the teachers concluded:

Just as you say, in that situation, I have also experienced that [that a student did not hand in the phone], and when I say that ‘I am disappointed in you, I cannot trust you’. So it is, you notice, not all, but most of them are a bit ashamed since they have actually abused a trust. (Team discussion 5, Teacher A)

Mobile phones as a tool for learning

The teachers made exceptions to the ban acknowledging that mobile phones were useful in teaching. During eleven of the team discussions, the teachers talked about how to cope with the unforeseen pedagogical implications of the ban. Before implementing the ban, some of the teachers had used the students’ mobile phones in their teaching. However, they had not really considered this when they made the decision to ban the students’ mobile phones, which turned out to be somewhat problematic. As one teacher states about earlier experiences of using mobile phones in teaching:

At the same time, I have used podcasts to listen to English and combine English [the school subject] with physical education. To be able to take a walk while you listen to a podcast…. (Team discussion 12, Teacher G)

Eleven of the thirteen team discussions revealed that, despite the ban, teachers continued to integrate students’ mobiles into their teaching in various ways. For example, the following quotation is representative of activities that the teachers allowed the students to use their mobile phones for:

Teacher B: They are using them in the construction hall on Fridays, especially when they need to document their work, then many of them use their phones and take photos.

Teacher A: Take photos and calculate. They use the calculator…. (Team discussion 10)

In one of the discussions, a teacher asked a colleague how that specific teacher used mobile phones in teaching. The teacher gave the following answer:

In my school subject, you man? Yes, but it can be, for example, to take a photo of the blackboard or google a word or use it as a dictionary. You can do many of those things with the laptop as well, but with the difference that you are quicker [on the mobile], it is, so to speak, more practical. It becomes more intuitive for them [the students] to use their mobile phones. It is more natural for them. Just go for it. But also, if someone has forgotten, if the laptop battery has run out…. (Team discussion 7, Teacher H)

Similarly, some of the teachers said that mobile phones were more convenient to use in the classroom for a certain type of schoolwork than school computers. This was particularly highlighted by the teachers teaching in the construction hall. As one of the teachers emphasized:

But if I could choose between the laptop and the mobile phone, in the construction hall, the mobile phone is much more convenient, to take a photo or write something. (Team discussion 8, Teacher F)

All of the teachers also expressed at some point during the team discussions that mobile phones were more accessible since the students did not always bring their laptops as they were supposed to do:

Hey, sometimes they do not want to bring the laptop and leave it at home. I have told them to bring it, and some of them have it, but there is some grumbling about having it. And I can understand that. The mobile phone is more accessible, and they always have it anyway…. (Team discussion 8, Teacher B)

Other occurring disturbances

One of the reasons for implementing the ban was the teachers’ perception that the presence of students’ mobile phones in the classroom had a negative impact on the study environment. During the implementation, when the students were no longer occupied with their mobile phones, the teachers became aware of other things that turned out to be disturbing and distracting. Other disturbances that occurred were a recurring theme in twelve of the thirteen team discussions. For instance, the teachers expressed specifically that the school’s laptops emerged as a source of distractions when mobile phones were not present. The laptops provided by the school were supposed to be a tool for learning. This meant that the school expected the teachers to use them in their teaching. The teachers gave many examples of how the students used the school laptops to engage in off-task use, such as watching film clips not relevant to the assignments with the sound turned on:

I had a student who sat at a front desk and watched a movie with the sound turned on, on his laptop…. And was watching a movie about airplanes, and I told him you must turn off the sound…. (Team discussion 7, Teacher H)

Another off task use that the teachers reacted to was students playing games on their school laptops. Some teachers described that they sometimes made the students work with paper and pen to avoid the distraction and disturbance that the laptops caused. For some of the teachers, the distraction from the students’ laptops became problematic. During team discussion 6, the teachers questioned whether the expected benefits of the ban could be fulfilled when laptops were present in the classroom:

As we said last week, I think, as long as the laptops are here, then it [the ban] has no impact. Regarding the disturbances, it is the same. (Team discussion 6, Teacher G)

During the last team discussion, one teacher summarized the teachers’ sentiments about how the mobile phone ban made the teachers aware of students’ engagement in off-task use on the school laptops:

One concern has been that they have been using the computer instead when you collect the mobile phones. I have experienced this as a big problem. They sit and watch movies and do other things. I have seen the computer as an obstacle as well, many times, in fact…. (Team discussion 13, Teacher A)

Discussion

Students’ mobile phones are being banned in many schools in Sweden as well as around the world based on the perception that their presence during class is distracting the students and disturbing classroom practice. At the same time, the ongoing worldwide digitalization of schools has resulted in technology-rich classrooms in which teachers are obligated to integrate digital technology in teaching. To investigate the implications of a mobile phone ban for teachers in upper secondary practice in a 1:1 school, we explored how eight teachers managed a mobile phone ban that they had themselves initiated, and what concerns they raised during the implementation. The ban was instigated with the intention of restricting all use of students’ mobile phones during class. Initially, the teachers believed it would be rather straight forward to implement the ban. However, implementing and upholding the ban turned out to be a much more complex and challenging task than had been expected even though they had themselves designed the ban and agreed to implement it.

An overall and striking result in the present study was that the teachers regularly made exceptions to the ban from the outset. For the teachers, upholding a blanket ban became a problem in the situated classroom practice for pedagogical and practical reasons. The discussions among the teachers in the empirical material show that the ban did not only restrict the students’ off task use of mobile phones but also restricted the teachers’ use of them in their teaching, in which the teachers were used to a high degree of autonomy. Already from the start, some of the teachers relied on students bringing their mobile phones to class as a pedagogical tool to stand in for the laptops distributed by the school, but which had not yet been delivered at the beginning of the semester. Moreover, throughout the semester, teachers found that mobile phones provided pedagogical functionality essential to teaching and learning. The teachers accepted the use when they perceived their versatility and ease of use. This indicated flexibility was accepted by some of the teachers, whereas those teachers who kept strictly to the ban experienced more pronounced challenges. The teachers’ discussions clearly indicate that the students’ mobile phones had become a part of the established social, technological, and institutional arrangements enabling the teachers’ practice. This implies that the students’ personal mobile phones had already been integrated as part of the educational infrastructure for learning (Guribye, 2015) in this school practice. It was not until the ban was in place that this circumstance was made obvious.

To effectuate the ban the teachers unanimously emphasized the importance of collecting all mobile phones at the beginning of each class, envisioning that the students would accept such a measure as a “standard rule of conduct.” However, as the study shows the practicalities of the collection procedure provoked students’ resistance. This led to conflicts and tensions in the power relationships and trust between students and teachers (Dinsmore, 2019), which the teachers perceived to be challenging, stressful, and time-consuming without resulting in the peaceful learning environments free from digital distractions that they had anticipated.

These obstacles contributed to the dissolvement of the ban as a collective ruling during the first semester. Toward the end of the semester the teacher team came to the joint conclusion that the ban did not work as a general policy. Instead, the teachers agreed to individually manage the issue of disrupting mobile phone use in the classroom. The teachers would then still be able to refer to a potential reintroduction of the previous banning policy in their interaction with the students in the class if needed. To some extent, this could be seen as an attempt to “take control” by monitoring the use of mobile phones instead of enforcing a ban (Beeri & Horowitz, 2020). Regardless of the obstacles during the school year, the teachers maintained their beliefs that banning mobile phones was inherently beneficial, as evidenced by the decision they made during the last team discussion. The teacher team decided to implement a mobile phone ban once more during the next school year, despite having regularly made exceptions in effectuating the ban ruling for practical and pedagogical reasons.

Following the reflections in the teacher team shows that participating in the process of banning students’ mobile phones in class can advance a general understanding of the use of digital technologies in schools (Selwyn & Aagaard, 2021). The somewhat contradictory nature of the teachers’ conduct during the implementation displays that the teacher team discussions created an arena for collective negotiations on implementing the ban. Moreover, the recurring exceptions to the ban catalyzed discussions on how mobile phones and digital technologies can be used for schoolwork. This study demonstrates that in the absence of mobile phones in class, teachers can be made aware of how students often use technology provided by the school (the laptops) for distracting and disturbing off-task activities. In this study, this use was found to be just as distracting as mobile phones used during class, and at times even more visible due to the larger screens of laptops. This finding confirms that in a connected classroom of a digitalized school, access to the internet is a superior issue compared to which device is used (Osakwe et al., 2017; Wood et al., 2018). Results from the present study add to the body of research showing that the use of any technology in the classroom needs to be deliberate and well planned by the teachers, guiding the students away from disturbing off-task use and onto constructive use focusing on schoolwork. This study further shows that grasping for what might appear as alluringly quick and cost-effective solutions with the hope to prevent undesirable distractions and enhance students’ learning, might in fact fail its purpose. In contemporary technologically saturated schools, further attention on how to design better for learning with technology (e.g., digital literacy), on enriching teachers’ understanding of their pedagogical repertoire and the students’ infrastructure for learning without causing distraction and disturbances seems to be a more productive way ahead.

Concluding remarks

As this study illustrates, managing such a personalized and mundane technology as contemporary mobile phones in an educational setting is not a binary question of banning or permitting their presence in the classroom. In similarity with previous studies, this study confirms the difficulties of implementing strict mobile phone policies that are consistent and efficient (Langmia & Glass, 2014; Selwyn et al., 2018).

This study particularly demonstrates that the mobile phone is already part of the educational infrastructure in school, and that it constitutes a technology which teachers are already using for teaching, and that students are using for schoolwork. To implement a blanket ban does not diminish perceived negative effects of mobile phones, but rather brings new organizational, pedagogical, and relational challenges that are neither easy to foresee, nor for the individual teacher to handle in situ in the classroom. Banning mobile phones with the hope of getting a quick and desirable way of improving e.g. school results, as suggested in some of the previous research, and which the teachers in the present study also envisioned, fails to anticipate, and acknowledge the emerging difficulties of banishing a device that has already become entangled both in our contemporary everyday life and education.

Limitations

This study was based on a longitudinal study of a teacher team in one school in Sweden. Such a small sample obviously puts limits on the generalizability of the results. Nevertheless, knowledge gained by exploring how a team of teachers handled a ban on a type of technology which so permeates society today, illuminating what conundrums upholding the ban brought contribute with important insights that can be further investigated. In this study, results were based on teachers’ statements rather than observations of the actual situation in classroom practice. Such observations, in combination with taking the students’ point of view into account, would also contribute to a deeper understanding of these complex issues. Further analysis of this data could address impact of socioeconomic background, second language, special educational needs of students.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1 In Sweden, an upper secondary lecturer must hold at least a licentiate academic degree, which equals to two years as a doctoral student. An upper secondary lecturer’s employment consists of working with school development, research, and teaching. Teaching classes must be no less than 50% of the employment grade.