Evidence for and against banning mobile phones in schools: A scoping review PDF Free Download
1 / 25/25
100%
Evidence for and against banning mobile phones in schools: A
scoping review
Author
Campbell, Marilyn, Edwards, Elizabeth J, Pennell, Donna, Poed, Shiralee, Lister, Victoria, Gillett-
Swan, Jenna, Kelly, Adrian, Nguyen, Dajana Zec Thuy-Anh
Published
2024
Journal Title
Journal of Psychologists and Counsellors in Schools
Version
Version of Record (VoR)
DOI
10.1177/20556365241270394
Rights statement
© The Author(s) 2024. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use,
reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work
is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/
nam/open-access-at-sage).
Downloaded from
https://hdl.handle.net/10072/435255
Griffith Research Online
https://research-repository.griffith.edu.au
https://doi.org/10.1177/20556365241270394
Journal of Psychologists and
Counsellors in Schools
2024, Vol. 34(3) 242 –265
© The Author(s) 2024
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/20556365241270394
journals.sagepub.com/home/spc
Evidence for and against banning
mobile phones in schools:
A scoping review
Marilyn Campbell
Queensland University of Technology, Australia
Elizabeth J Edwards
The University of Queensland, Australia
Donna Pennell
Queensland University of Technology, Australia
Shiralee Poed
The University of Queensland, Australia
Victoria Lister
Griffith University, Australia
Jenna Gillett-Swan
Queensland University of Technology, Australia
Adrian Kelly
Queensland University of Technology, Australia
Dajana ZecThuy-Anh Nguyen
The University of Queensland, Australia
Corresponding author:
Marilyn Campbell, School of Early Childhood and Inclusive Education, Faculty of Creative Industries, Education and
Social Justice, Member of Centre for Inclusive Education, E Block Level 4, Queensland University of Technology,
Victoria Park Road, QLD 4059, Australia.
Email: ma.campbell@qut.edu.au
1270394SPC0010.1177/20556365241270394Journal of Psychologists and Counsellors in SchoolsCampbell et al.
research-article2024
Original Article
Campbell et al. 243
Abstract
Public opinions are divided on the relative benefits versus harms of allowing mobile phones in
schools. When debating the consequences of mobile phones in schools, politicians often argue
that students’ use of mobile phones distract from their learning, increase cyberbullying and lead to
poor mental health outcomes. We conducted a scoping review of the global literature, followed
the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and meta-Analyses extension for scoping
reviews (PRISMA-ScR) and pre-registered our protocol with the Open Science Framework (OSF).
Our search and screening process identified 22 studies that met our inclusion criteria and shed
light on our research questions: whether mobile phone use in schools impacts academic outcomes,
mental health and wellbeing and cyberbullying. We found an absence of randomized controlled trials
with evidence resting on a small number of studies with different designs, samples, operational
definitions of mobile phone bans (i.e. partial, or complete bans) and outcome measures, making
reconciliation of findings challenging. Nonetheless, we provide a synthesis of the latest evidence
for decision-makers tasked with deciding for or against mobile phone bans in schools. Directions
for future research are provided and practical implications for schools are discussed.
Keywords
Mobile phone bans, mobile phone policies, learning, mental health, cyberbullying
Introduction
Across Australia, and in other industrialized nations, mobile phone usage by school-aged students
has been demonized as harmful to engagement, mental health, disruptive to learning and a con-
tributor to cyberbullying and excessive internet use (Bennett, 2020; Duke & Montag, 2017; Elhai
et al., 2016; Škařupová et al., 2016). Politicians argue that students’ use of mobile phones distract
from their learning, increase cyberbullying and lead to poor mental health (Selwyn & Aagaard,
2021). Based on these beliefs and oft in the absence of research evidence, education departments
(most recently, including many within Australia) have enacted policies to ban the presence of
mobile phones in classrooms. As schools are tasked with preparing students for what will be tech-
nologically saturated lives, decisions to restrict mobile phone usage at school seem at odds with
educators’ obligations to teach students the responsible use of technology and in turn address bul-
lying, cyberbullying and student wellbeing in the contexts and on the devices in which they occur.
The present scoping review provides a much-needed examination of the evidence for and against
mobile phone bans in schools.
Mobile Phone Use in Children
Mobile phone ownership has become an almost ubiquitous part of young people’s lives. In
Australia, a survey by the Australian Communication and Media Authority found 48% of children
aged 6 to 13 either own or have access to a mobile phone, a number that has consistently risen since
the annual survey was launched in 2013 (Sparkes, 2019). In the UK, the media regulator found
83% of children aged 12 to 15 years owned a smartphone, 37% in the 8 to 11 years age bracket and
5% of 3- to 4-year-olds owned smartphones (Kleinman, 2020). In Japan and India, first mobile
phone ownership peaks at 15 to 16 years, in Egypt and Indonesia at 12 years and in Chile at 10 years
(GSM Association & NTT DOCOMO, 2013, 2016). In South Korea, 89.5% of the population aged
3 and over used smartphones (Park, 2020).
244 Journal of Psychologists and Counsellors in Schools 34(3)
Globally, many children both during and outside of school hours communicate and learn through
mobile technology, wrongly leading adults to believe the current generation are digital natives
(Goldsmith, 2014). While students may be competent at searching the internet, communicating on
social media and switching efficiently and effortlessly between applications, they also report being
overwhelmed by information and struggle with digital literacy (Neumann, 2016). As a result, what
has emerged over the past decade is a body of literature on how schools can use mobile technology,
including mobile phones, in the classroom to supplement learning (Bromley, 2012; Norris et al.,
2011) and support student collaboration (Ferreira et al., 2018).
Mobile Phone Bans in Schools
Despite decades of largely uncontroversial support for the use of technology in education (Kessel
et al., 2020), banning of phones is occurring in numerous educational jurisdictions across the
globe. The first wave of bans was initiated in the late 1980s and early 1990s in North America,
when many school sectors began to implement policies or laws to prevent students from using cell
phones and pagers in school (Education World, n.d.). However, by the early 2002s many of these
bans had been lifted (Wong, 2014). A second wave of banning commenced in earnest in schools
elsewhere in the world from 2008 to 2012 – well after the first wave of efforts to re-allow them
in multiple US states gathered impetus (Trucano, 2015). For example, India’s director of general
education issued orders preventing mobile phone use in 2005, an order re-enforced in 2019 and
which now applies to both students and teachers. In Japan, bans commenced in 2009, although
these, too, were reversed in 2019 (Selwyn & Aagaard, 2021). More recently, bans were imposed
in Israel, in 2016 (Selwyn & Aagaard, 2021); in France in 2017; in Shandong province, China, in
2018 (Environmental Health Trust, 2020); and in Ontario, Canada, in 2019 (Brown, 2019).
Denmark, Sweden, Chile, England, Wales and Madrid and others are now considering similar
mobile device restrictions (Selwyn & Aagaard, 2021). These restrictions are varied with some
schools not allowing any device in the school ground, others who require students to put the
phone in a locked bag, while others allow students to have their phones in their bags or pockets
but are not allowed to use them. Furthermore, a consequence of any decision to ban mobiles in
schools is that the responsibility for learning digital literacy is left to families, many of whom feel
ill-equipped to help their child become digitally literate (Strider et al., 2012). Nonetheless, the
banning of mobile phones in schools appears to be gathering momentum despite historically these
decisions being reversed a few years later. What is driving the renewed interest in educational
mobile phone policies?
The impetus for phone policy changes at school are often championed by politicians responding
to community concerns (Selwyn & Aagaard, 2021). Community concerns are amplified by the
media, creating moral panics about issues for which little-to-no evidence exists – and to which
banning then becomes a seemingly necessary and politically popular response (Orlando, 2019;
Selwyn & Aagaard, 2021). Justification based on such policies adopting a child protection stance
also dominate funded research in this area, with ‘[m]ost of the funded research begins with . . .
how to keep children safe from technology’ (Orlando, 2019, p. 8). While protection of children is
important, it is not the only lens through which the use and impacts of children’s technological
experiences can be viewed. Another reason could be there is emerging evidence that mobile phones
are a distraction to learning in university or college settings with self-report data and using designs
that produce correlations rather than causes (Bjornsen & Archer, 2015; Chen & Yan, 2016; Kates
et al., 2018; Lepp, 2015). A meta-analysis of 39 studies exploring the relationship between mobile
phone use and educational outcomes for university students (Kates et al., 2018) concluded there
Campbell et al. 245
appeared to be a consistent, but small, negative effect on educational achievement (e.g. GPAs, test
scores) if students were distracted by their mobile phones during lectures.
Theoretical Underpinnings
As a basis for understanding the impact of school-based mobile phone restrictions on children’s
learning and mental health outcomes, our scoping review was underpinned by the social develop-
mental model (SDM; Catalano & Hawkins, 1996). SDM is a multi-modal theoretical framework
that emphasizes the nested social ecology of health and wellbeing outcomes (Bronfenbrenner,
1989; Fleming et al., 2010), mastery of skills and confidence to tackle adverse events, transitions
and milestones (Bandura, 1977), and connectedness to others as being central to mental health
(Catalano et al., 2004). The SDM incorporates risk and protective factors as predictors of prob-
lematic behaviour. As such, children’s behaviour can be seen as being shaped by risk and protec-
tive factors across multiple social systems, including peer groups, education institutions and
communities (Fleming et al., 2010). In accord with SDM, we propose that children’s mobile
phone behaviour and associated outcomes are affected not only by each system, but by synergies
and tensions across these systems. We suggest that while mobile phones in schools may present
as a risk for some outcomes, they may be a protective factor for other outcomes. For example, the
distraction that mobile phones might cause in the classroom could be a risk for poorer academic
outcomes. On the other hand, children’s learning outcomes may be enhanced by the increased use
of a variety of smartphone-based technologies which might strengthen their confidence to keep
pace in a rapidly evolving tech-based world. A further example is the possibility that mobile
phones in schools presents as an increased risk for cyberbullying harming students’ mental health.
However, given that children’s psychological wellbeing is shaped by their sense of connection or
belongingness to prosocial groups and institutions, mobile phones may be a protective factor for
children’s mental health.
Current Review
Given the popularization of implementing restrictive mobile phone policies in schools, and the
tendency for increasing numbers of regions and countries following suit, there is a need to identify
the existing empirical evidence of the effects of mobile phones in schools. We conducted a robust
scoping review (see Munn et al., 2018) of the global empirical literature for banning mobile phones
in schools. Our aim was to examine whether student mobile phone usage at school is beneficial or
disruptive to engagement and learning and investigated the impact of using mobile phones at
school on academic outcomes, mental health and wellbeing and cyberbullying. Therefore, our
findings offer the scientific evidence for policy makers charged with making decisions about
mobile phone usage in schools and draws inferences for educators regarding the importance of
teaching the responsible use of mobile technologies in schools.
Method
Literature Search
We used Arksey and O’Malley’s (2005) five-stage framework for scoping reviews: (1) identifying
the research questions; (2) identifying relevant studies; (3) study selection; (4) charting the data;
and (5) summarizing and reporting the results. Our reporting process follows the Preferred
Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews
246 Journal of Psychologists and Counsellors in Schools 34(3)
(PRISMA-ScR; Tricco et al., 2018). The data extraction and synthesis plan were preregistered with
the Open Science Framework (OSF; see https://osf.io/aqgfp)
Identifying the Research Questions. The focus of our review was to understand the existing empirical
evidence for the effects of banning mobile phones in schools in relation to academic outcomes,
mental health and wellbeing and cyberbullying. To ensure our scoping review covered the full
range of literature on topics, the following research questions were used to guide our search:
1. Does mobile phone use at school impact on academic outcomes (including learning, dis-
tractibility, cheating)?
2. Does mobile phone use at school impact students’ mental health and wellbeing?
3. Does mobile phone use at school impact rates of cyberbullying?
Identifying Relevant Studies. Following consultation with an academic librarian and to be as wide-reach-
ing as possible, we searched databases in the field of education and psychology: Web of Science, APA
PsycInfo, A+ Education and Databases on the Proquest platform (Education Collection: Education
Database and ERIC; Proquest Dissertations and Thesis Global and Social Science Database; see
Appendix). Database searches were conducted between September 19 to 20, 2021 and were updated
May 20 to 22, 2023. We used a broad operationalization of key terms (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005):
mobile phone OR cell phone OR smart phone OR cellphone OR smartphone OR phone OR mobile
device AND school* OR education* OR class* AND bullying OR cyberbullying OR harass* OR
mental health OR anxiety OR depression OR wellbeing OR well being OR achievement OR learn*
OR attention OR distract* OR disrupt* OR cheat* OR addiction AND ban* OR restrict* OR policy
OR rule NOT university OR undergraduate. All search terms were of interest as keywords in the title
and abstract (see Appendix for search strings). Inclusion and exclusion criteria are shown in Table 1.
Study Selection. The first phase of the search identified 1,317 articles (see Figure 1). In the second
phase of the search, we identified 53 articles by a hand search of the reference lists of theoretical
papers, reviews and/or meta-analyses and articles identified in the earlier phase (i.e. snowballing).
The title and abstract and full-text screening was conducted using Covidence online software (see
Harrison et al., 2020 for review). Following removal of duplicates, 1,121 articles were screened at the
Table 1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Criterion Inclusion Exclusion
Time period 2007a to 2023 Studies outside these dates
Language English Non-English studies
Type of article Original research Not original articles
Study focus Discussed whether mobile phone
use at school contributed to
students’ academic outcomes
(learning), safety/wellbeing, mental
health, cyberbullying and/or any
other harmful or beneficial impacts
Articles that discussed mobile phone use by
students outside of school, including articles on the
impact of mobile phone use by students outside
of school hours (e.g. evenings and weekends)
or contribution to homework completion or
cyberbullying conducted outside of school hours
Population Students attending primary
(elementary) or secondary (high)
school
University students and/or adults
a2007 was the launch of the first iPhone and smart phone technology.
Campbell et al. 247
title and abstract level revealing many articles that were not relevant to the topic, therefore after their
removal 73 articles were identified for full-text screening. Full-text versions of each article was read
by two authors to confirm relevancy for the current review. Conflicts were resolved by a third author
who did not conduct the initial screening. Articles that did not meet the inclusion criteria were
removed (n = 51). A total of 22 articles met criteria for inclusion (cf. Figure 1).
Charting the Data. Data were extracted from the final identified studies using a predetermined form
including author/year, location, aims, participants, design, outcome measures and main findings
(see Table 2). As shown in the table, studies were conducted and/or published between 2013 and
2022 (12 were unpublished).
Figure 1. PRISMA flow chart.
248 Journal of Psychologists and Counsellors in Schools 34(3)
Table 2. Summary of included studies (N = 22).
Author/s (year) Location Aim/s Participants (number) Design Outcome measures Main finding/s
A = Academic; MHW = Mental health/wellbeing; B = Bullying/cyber bullying; L = Limitation/s; S = Strength/s
Abrahamsson
(n.d.)a
Norway Investigate the effects of mobile
phone bans on student academic
outcomes, student wellbeing and
incidence of bullying.
Cohort data of secondary school
students aged 15–16 years
(2010–2018; N = 151,925)
DiD A: GPA, teacher-
awarded grades and
likelihood of pursuing
academic vs. vocational
studies.
MHW & B: National
pupil survey (NDET).
A: Female GPA and teacher-awarded grades, and male teacher-awarded grades in
math and Norwegian only, increased following mobile phone bans however, these
results were more pronounced for students from low SES families.
MHW: No change was observed in student wellbeing.
B: Bullying incidences decreased after banning mobile phones.
L: No control group, however, checks indicated satisfactory robustness.
Aloteibi (2022)aUSA Explore the relationship between
teachers’ attitude towards mobile
phones’ impact on student social,
psychological and academic
outcomes and teachers’ primary
mobile phone policy.
Secondary school teachers; 64.1%
female (N = 248)
Cross-
sectional
A & MHW: Scale
of Teachers’ Beliefs
Concerning Mobile
Devices.
A & MHW: On average, teachers believed that mobile phones somewhat have
a negative effect on students’ social, psychological and learning experience.
Teachers were more likely to enforce a total ban of mobile phones in class if
they perceived mobile phones to have a more negative impact on these three
dimensions than teachers who had more positive outlooks.
L: Only explored teachers’ attitudes.
Beland and
Murphy (2016)
UK Examine the relationship between
mobile phone bans and academic
outcomes.
Longitudinal data from secondary
school students aged 11, 14 &
16 years in 91 schools in UK
(N = 130,482)
DiD A: GCSE grades;
2001–2011.
A: GCSE grades increased pre-post in schools with mobile phone bans for
low-achieving and low SES students. No differences in academic outcomes for
high-achieving students.
L: No control group, however, a robustness check indicated there was no
evidence for grade increased without the ban.
Beneito and
Vicente-Chirivella
(2022)
Spain Explore the relationship between
mobile phone bans, academic
outcomes and incidence of
bullying.
Primary & secondary school
students aged 6–17 years from 17
Spanish Regions.
2 regions banned mobile phones
vs. 15 regions had no ban (N = not
reported)
DiD A: PISA scores in Math
& Science; 2006–2018.
B: Spanish Ministry
of Education’s data;
2012–2017.
A: 1 of 2 regions which banned mobile phones reported increase in PISA scores in
Math and Science, pre-post, relative to regions with no ban.
B: Both regions with bans reported bullying reduced in students aged 12–17 years
pre-post bans, but not children <12 years.
L: Data did not distinguish complete bans from partial bans, such that some
schools in regions where bans were in place, allowed mobile phones to be used
for educational purposes.
Dacosta (2021)aUSA Investigate the relationship
between mobile phone distraction
and impulsivity and attitudes to
mobile phone bans.
Secondary school students aged
18 years; 45% female (N = 76)
Cross-
sectional
A: Distraction: authors’
own survey; Impulsivity:
EPQ-R.
A: Students who reported higher impulsivity were more likely to be distracted by
texting in class and preferred lenient mobile phone bans in school.
L: No control group.
Davis and Koepke
(2016)
Bermuda Investigate whether mobile phone
restrictions are related to bullying
victimization.
Secondary school students aged
11–19 years; 57% female
(N = 2079)
Cross-
sectional
B: authors’ own survey. B: Aggressive online victimization was more common in schools with mobile
phone restrictions, relative to schools with no restrictions.
L: Did not distinguish between mobile phone use during school and outside
school hours.
Gao etal. (2017) China Examine differences in teachers’,
parents’ and students’ attitudes on
mobile phone bans in schools.
Teachers, parents and students
at primary & secondary schools
(N = 1226; nteachers = 356,
nparents = 435, nstudents = 435)
Cross-
sectional
A: authors’ own survey. A: Students believed mobile phones enhanced learning and they were significantly
more likely to bring mobile phones to class despite school bans. Teachers
believed mobile phones distracted learning and enabled cheating in exams.
Parents were more supportive than teachers but less supportive than students
regarding the positive impact of mobile phone use.
L: Only explored attitudes, albeit of students, parents and teachers.
(Continued)
Campbell et al. 249
Author/s (year) Location Aim/s Participants (number) Design Outcome measures Main finding/s
A = Academic; MHW = Mental health/wellbeing; B = Bullying/cyber bullying; L = Limitation/s; S = Strength/s
Guldvik and
Kvinnsland
(2018)a
Norway Examine relationship between
mobile phone bans, academic
outcomes, wellbeing and incidence
of bullying.
Secondary school students aged
13 - 16 years.
(N = 30% of schools in Norway)
DiD A: Norwegian Math &
English exam.
MHW & B: National
pupil survey (NDET).
A: Complete mobile phones bans were unrelated to exam scores.
MHW: Complete mobile phones bans were weakly related to lower wellbeing.
B: Bans were associated with reduced incidences of bullying, particularly for
males in private schools.
S: Clearly distinguished between complete bans and partial bans, such that partial
bans allowed phone use for educational purposes.
Howlett and
Waemusa (2019)
Thailand Investigate attitudes towards
mobile phones in learning.
EFL secondary school students
aged 13 and 16 years; 72% female
(N = 227)
Cross-
sectional
A: authors’ own
adapted survey.
A: Students believed mobile phones aided and improved learning and reported
that mobile phones were often used in class regardless of school bans.
L: Only explored students’ attitudes.
Kessel etal.
(2020)
Sweden Examine the relationship between
mobile phone bans and academic
outcomes.
Longitudinal data from nationwide
secondary school students aged
15–16 years (N = 16,724)
DiD A: average school
grades; the national
standardized
mathematics test score.
A: Mobile phone bans were not related to student academic performance.
S: Collected data from the entire grade 9 population of Sweden.
Kopecky etal.
(2021)
Czech
Republic
Explore students attitudes
towards mobile phone bans and
mobile phone use during school
break times.
Primary and secondary school
students aged 7–17 years; 50%
female (N = 21,177)
Cross-
sectional
MHW: Social
interaction: authors’
own survey.
MHW: Students preferred to use their mobile phone at break time rather than
play sport or social activities. Mobile phone use at break time decreased when
bans were enforced at school.
S: Compared results from schools that banned and allowed mobile phones.
L: Mainly focused on mobile phone use during recess.
Little (2014)aUSA Examine the relationship between
mobile phone use, academic
outcomes and students’ attitudes
towards mobile phone policies.
Secondary school students aged
13–19 years at a single school;
41% female (N = 130)
Cross-
sectional
A: GPA and FCAT
results.
A: Mobile phone use and students’ attitudes towards classroom bans were
unrelated to academic outcomes. Student knowledge of mobile phone policy
was not related to usage, however, student agreement with policy was linked to
lower usage.
L: Low generalisability due to data being collected from a single school.
Magnusson etal.
(2017)a
Sweden Investigate students’ attitudes
towards mobile phone policies
and mobile phones use at school.
Secondary school students aged
13–14 years at a single school;
73% female (N = 11)
Qualitative A: focus group
interviews.
A: Students believed that mobile phones aided learning, despite the potential for
disruption.
Students reported no restrictive mobile phone rules at school but believed there
was responsible usage among students.
L: Only explored students’ attitudes.
Melattinkara
(2021)a
USA Investigate differences in student
academic outcomes between
a school which banned mobile
phones and a school that did not.
Secondary school students aged
14–17 years from two schools in
Los Angeles (N = 250; n w/ban = 140,
n w/out ban = 110)
Quantitative
causal-
comparative
A: English and
mathematics SBA
results.
A: The average mathematics and English SBA scores were significantly higher
among students from the school which banned mobile phones vs. the school that
did not.
S: Compared results from schools that banned and allowed mobile phones.
L: Cannot infer causal relationship.
Porter etal.
(2016)
Ghana,
Malawi,
South
Africa
Explore the relationship between
mobile phone use in school and
learning.
Primary and secondary school
students aged 9–25 years
from 24 schools in countries
where mobile phone bans are
common (N = 2,241; nGhana = 710,
nMalawi = 500, nSouth Africa = 1,031)
Mixed-
method
A: authors’ own survey. A: Students believed that mobile phones contributed positively to educational
activities despite it being a possible distraction in class.
B: Furthermore, participants believed phones are a tool for cyberbullying.
94.7% students from Ghana, 85.9% from Malawi and 85.3% from South Africa
reported mobile phone bans in their school.
L: Only explored students’ attitudes.
(Continued)
Table 2. (Continued)
250 Journal of Psychologists and Counsellors in Schools 34(3)
Author/s (year) Location Aim/s Participants (number) Design Outcome measures Main finding/s
A = Academic; MHW = Mental health/wellbeing; B = Bullying/cyber bullying; L = Limitation/s; S = Strength/s
Roberts (2019)aUSA Explore attitudes towards mobile
phones in schools.
Secondary school students
aged 11–18 years, teachers and
administrators.
(N = 114; nstudents = 50, nteachers = 60,
nadministrators = 4)
Qualitative A: focus group
interviews.
B: Most students and teachers believed mobile phones were useful for learning
but were potentially distracting.
L: Only explored attitudes, albeit of students, teachers and administrators.
Smith etal.
(2018)
USA Investigate differences in academic
outcomes of classes which
integrated mobile phones into
learning vs. those that did not.
Secondary school students aged
13–19 years in an agriculture class.
(N = 263)
Between-
groups
A: author’s own test. A: No significant differences were found between student academic outcomes in
the mobile phone vs. comparison group.
L: No random assignment to groups and low generalisability.
Toth (2022)aUSA Examine attitudes of secondary
school administrators on student
mobile phone use and its
association with consequences
enforced on students who
violated mobile phone policies.
Secondary school principals and
assistant principals in Ohio; 27.8%
female.
(N = 212)
Cross-
sectional
A & B: an adapted
version of the Cell
Phones in American
High Schools: A National
Survey questionnaire.
A: School administrators believed mobile phones could both enhance student
learning and be a distraction and a cheating device.
B: Principals were concerned mobile phones increased bullying and harassment.
Most reported that their school enforced severe punishments on students who
violated mobile phone rules regarding cyberbullying, cheating and the student
code of conduct.
L: Only explored principals’ attitudes.
Tran (2021)aUSA Explore attitudes about the
impact of mobile phone usage on
learning, wellbeing and bullying.
Secondary school students aged
15–18 years, teachers, researchers
and an EdTech expert (N = 46)
Qualitative A, B, & MHW:
interview data.
A, B, & MHW: Stakeholders agreed that mobile phones are powerful tools for
connecting with others and assist with distance learning, however, they were
thought to be a distraction, perpetuate cyberbullying, and have negative effects
on student mental wellbeing.
L: Only explored attitudes, albeit of teachers, researchers and an EdTech expert.
Tricoli (2022)aUSA Examine attitudes of teachers and
administrators regarding student
mobile phone use.
Secondary school teachers
and administrators (N = 13;
nteachers = 10, nadministrators = 3)
Qualitative A & MHW: interviews,
focus groups and
document analysis.
A & MHW: Teachers and administrators believed that student learning was
negatively influenced by mobile phone use, and students’ excessive use during
COVID-19 has increased mental health issues when returning to face-to-face
teaching. The school had a strict mobile phone policy where all devices should be
turned off and left inside a placeholder upon entering the classroom. Confiscation
of mobile phones is enforced as punishment for violation.
L: Only explored educators’ attitudes.
Walker (2013) UK Investigate attitudes about
learning, bullying, cheating and
disruption where mobile phone
bans are and are not present.
Secondary school students aged
14–16 years from two schools
(N = 325)
Mixed-
method
design
A, B, & MHW: author’s
own survey; interviews.
A, B, & MHW: Students believed that mobile phones have multiple educational
benefits. Students suggest limitations for allowing mobile phones in schools
include increased opportunity for cyberbullying, cheating and disruption.
L: Only explored students’ attitudes.
Wike (2020)aUSA Explore secondary school
students’ attitudes towards the
impact of mobile phone use at
school and their learning and
social-emotional functioning.
Secondary school students
aged 14–18 years; 50.1% female
(N = 450, 4 were interviewed)
Mixed
method
A & MHW: author’s
own survey adapted
from existing measures
and interviews.
A & MHW: Students believed mobile phones supported communication,
enhanced formal and informal learning, but was also a source of distraction and
stress. 91% of students thought the school mobile phone policy (enabling out-of-
class usage) gave teachers flexibility to form their own classroom rules.
L: Only explored students’ attitudes.
Note. DiD = Difference-in-Differences estimation; EFL = English as a Foreign Language; EPQ-R = Eysenck and Eysenck Impulsivity Questionnaire – Impulsiveness Scale; FCAT = Florida Comprehensive
Assessment Test; GCSE = General Certificate of Secondary Education; GPA = Grade Point Average; NDET = Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training’s Pupil Survey; PISA = Programme for
International Student Assessment; SBA = Smarter Balanced Assessments; SES = Socioeconomic.
aUnpublished.
Table 2. (Continued)
Campbell et al. 251
Summarizing and Reporting the Results. Due to the heterogenic nature of the methods and outcomes
of the identified studies, we used a narrative synthesis to answer our research questions and pro-
vide practical implications and directions for future research. As such, we provide a qualitative
synthesis of findings regarding the benefits (for) and/or harm (against) mobile phone use in schools,
in line with our OSF registration.
Results
Our scoping review identified 22 studies conducted in 12 countries (Bermuda, China, Czech
Republic, Ghana, Malawi, Norway, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Thailand, UK, USA). We did not
find research on mobile phone bans from the Oceania region. A range of research designs were
used: difference-in-differences (DiD) estimation (n = 5), between-groups comparison (n = 1), quan-
titative causal-comparative (n = 1), cross-sectional (n = 8), qualitative (n = 4) and mixed-methods
(n = 3). There was a marked absence of rigorous, randomized and controlled studies comparing
academic outcomes, mental health and wellbeing and cyberbullying before or after mobile phone
bans or with or without restriction policies in schools. To answer our research questions (see sec-
tion ‘Identifying the Research Questions’) we present findings on the impact of mobile phone use
on academic outcomes (n = 7) and the relationship between mobile phone use and learning (n = 14;
section ‘Mobile Phone Use and Academic Outcomes’), student mental health and wellbeing (n = 6;
section ‘Mobile Phone Use and Mental Health and Wellbeing’) and cyberbullying (n = 7; section
‘Mobile Phone Use and Cyberbullying’; Note: some papers covered more than one outcome). It is
important to note that only papers that examined the impacts of mobile phone bans in schools were
included in our scoping review. However, we found that studies had different operational defini-
tions of a mobile phone ban, that is, complete or partial bans (see section ‘Implications for Future
Research and Practice’).
Mobile Phone Use and Academic Outcomes
Effects of Mobile Phone Bans on Academic Outcomes. Seven studies explored the effects of mobile
phone bans on academic outcomes (i.e. causal relationship) using different methodological designs,
namely DiD estimation (Abrahamsson, n.d.; Ashenfelter, 1978; n = 5; Beland & Murphy, 2016;
Beneito & Vicente-Chirivella, 2022; Guldvik & Kvinnsland, 2018; Kessel et al., 2020), between-
groups comparison (n = 1; Smith et al., 2018) and quantitative causal-comparative (n = 1; Melat-
tinkara, 2021). Four studies reported increases in academic outcomes as evidence to support mobile
phones bans in schools (Abrahamsson, n.d.; Beland & Murphy, 2016; Beneito & Vicente-
Chirivella, 2022; Melattinkara, 2021) while three studies reported no differences in student aca-
demic achievement regardless of bans (Guldvik & Kvinnsland, 2018; Kessel et al., 2020; Smith
et al., 2018). Studies using the DiD estimation method found mixed results with three papers
revealing bans improved academic achievements (Abrahamsson, n.d.; Beland & Murphy, 2016;
Beneito & Vicente-Chirivella, 2022) and two papers showing no academic differences (Guldvik &
Kvinnsland, 2018; Kessel et al., 2020). In other work, Smith et al. (2018) compared the differences
in agriculture students’ ability to identify tree leaf with and without smartphone support and found
no significant differences in test scores between the group which employed smartphone support
and the control group that used printed material, suggesting that incorporating mobile phones into
pedagogical practices does not diminish students’ learning experience.
Reconciliation of results was challenging, and findings should be treated with caution given
differences in methods and measures, and discrepancies in operational definitions of the bans
themselves. For example, the results of two studies supporting bans for improved academic
252 Journal of Psychologists and Counsellors in Schools 34(3)
outcomes were restricted to low-achieving students from low socioeconomic (SES) backgrounds
(Abrahamsson, n.d.; Beland & Murphy, 2016). That is, they found that high-achieving and eco-
nomically advantaged students were less likely to benefit academically from mobile phones use in
class, as compared to their disadvantaged peers. Beland and Murphy (2016) examined exam scores
in secondary school students and found that in schools which imposed a mobile phone ban, exam
scores improved by an average 0.07 standard deviation, pre- to post-ban. Importantly, this effect
was driven by the finding that students in the lowest quintile of prior academic achievement made
a gain of approximately 14.23% of a standard deviation in test scores, while for students in the top
quintile, test scores were unrelated to the ban. Beland and Murphy suggested that the most likely
explanation for this difference was that low-achieving students may have poorer self-control and
become distracted by the presence of mobile phones, while high-achievers might be more focused
in the classroom irrespective of the mobile phone policy. Abrahamsson (n.d.) reported that female
students’ GPA and teacher-awarded grades and male students’ teacher-awarded grades in math and
Norwegian only, increased following mobile phone bans; however, these results were more pro-
nounced for students from low SES families. Specifically, Abrahamsson found no positive effects
of mobile phone bans on the grades of male students from high SES families.
Two other studies providing evidence supporting bans for increasing academic outcomes were
ambiguous on whether mobile phones were banned completely or were allowed to be used in class
for learning purposes (Beneito & Vicente-Chirivella, 2022; Melattinkara, 2021). Specifically,
Beneito and Vicente-Chirivella (2022) reported a positive effect of mobile phone bans on student
PISA scores in one of two regions that equated to advancing 0.6 to 0.8 years of learning in math and
science. However, Beneito and Vicente-Chirivella did not differentiate between complete bans and
partial bans (allowed phones for learning purposes). It is therefore unclear whether the school
reporting the increase in academic outcomes allowed mobile phones to be used during class for
learning. Melattinkara (2021) found students from schools prohibiting mobile phones scored
higher in mathematics and English compared to students from schools with lenient mobile phone
policies. However, Melattinkara noted that teachers’ decision to either ban or incorporate mobile
phone technology into individual classrooms, regardless of schools’ overarching policy, was not
accounted for as a potential factor influencing student academic outcome. As such, it is unclear
whether the increases in academic outcomes can be attributed to mobile phone bans or the flexibil-
ity with which teachers permitted phones to be used as learning tools.
Conversely, three studies found no relationship between mobile phone bans and academic
achievement (Guldvik & Kvinnsland, 2018; Kessel et al., 2020; Smith et al., 2018). Kessel et al.
(2020) replicated Beland and Murphy’s (2016) study and found no evidence for the positive or
negative impact of mobile phone bans on students’ academic outcomes measured by school grades
and math test scores. Notably, Kessel et al. (2020) collected data from the entire country’s popula-
tion of ninth graders, unlike Beland and Murphy who sampled only four cities. In other work,
Guldvik and Kvinnsland (2018) reported no differences in secondary students’ math and English
test scores in schools that strictly banned mobile phone use throughout the school day. Together,
these studies (Guldvik & Kvinnsland, 2018; Kessel et al., 2020; Smith et al., 2018) provide no
evidence for the implementation of mobile phones bans in schools for the purpose of improving
academic outcomes.
Relationship Between Mobile Phone Use and Learning. Research capturing the relationship between
attitudes to mobile phone usage (i.e. correlational relationship) and student learning are mixed. Ten
studies found that students, teachers, parents and administrators were concerned about students’
distractibility when mobile phones were permitted in schools (Aloteibi, 2022; Gao et al., 2017;
Magnusson et al., 2017; Porter et al., 2016; Roberts, 2019; Toth, 2022; Tran, 2021; Tricoli, 2022;
Campbell et al. 253
Walker, 2013; Wike, 2020) and four studies reported that students, teachers and administrators
believed that allowing phones in class might perpetuate cheating (Gao et al., 2017; Toth, 2022;
Tricoli, 2022; Walker, 2013). There was a general consensus among most studies of a perceived
negative influence of mobile phones on student learning. One study surveyed students, teachers
and parents across primary and secondary schools on their perception of schools’ mobile phone
policies (Gao et al., 2017) and noted reasons for stricter regulation of mobile phone use at school
were: disruption to learning, disturbance during resting periods and a tool for cheating during
exams. Three studies reported similar perceptions among teachers and administrators (Aloteibi,
2022; Toth, 2022; Tricoli, 2022). While teachers were found more likely to hold a negative view of
mobile phone use at school (Gao et al., 2017), some studies suggest students are also highly aware
of the distraction mobile phones may bring during learning periods (Magnusson et al., 2017; Porter
et al., 2016; Roberts, 2019; Tran, 2021; Walker, 2013; Wike, 2020), highlighting a perceived con-
cern for allowing phones into the classroom.
Two studies used cross-sectional designs to examine the relationship between mobile phone use
and aspects of learning. Dacosta (2021) found higher mobile phone distractibility was related to
greater students’ impulsivity. However, Little (2014) found no relationship between mobile phone
use and academic outcomes indexed using GPA.
Eleven studies with students and educators showed a broadly accepted belief the mobile phones
are valuable devices for supporting teaching and learning (Aloteibi, 2022; Gao et al., 2017; Howlett
& Waemusa, 2019; Magnusson et al., 2017; Porter et al., 2016; Roberts, 2019; Toth, 2022; Tran,
2021; Tricoli, 2022; Walker, 2013; Wike, 2020). For instance, one study with adolescents reported
benefits of mobile use in schools as: rapid, easily transportable and convenient internet access;
replacement for searching when laptops were slow; being able to photograph work on boards;
enhanced organizational capability; and being a compact, all-encompassing tool for learning (e.g.
calculators, fitness indicators; Walker, 2013). Walker (2013) also reported that 70% of students in
the study (irrespective of whether a ban was in place at their school) felt they would be happy to
have their phones accessible in class. Another study found over 82% of student participants were
utilizing their mobile phones for research which enhanced their formal and informal learning expe-
riences (Wike, 2020). Interestingly, three studies conducted in different settings, revealed that stu-
dents prefer to be autonomous with their mobile phone use at school regardless of policies, with
many reporting to be using their devices in spite of bans (Gao et al., 2017; Howlett & Waemusa,
2019; Walker, 2013; Wike, 2020).
Mobile Phone Use and Mental Health and Wellbeing
Studies exploring the evidence to support mobile phone bans in schools for protecting student
mental health and wellbeing are inconclusive. Six studies explored the relationship between mobile
phone use and student mental health and wellbeing. Two studies used DiD estimation (Abrahamsson,
n.d.; Guldvik & Kvinnsland, 2018), one study used cross-sectional methods (Aloteibi, 2022), two
studies used qualitative methods (Tran, 2021; Tricoli, 2022) and one study used mixed method
(Wike, 2020). Two studies provided anecdotal support for banning mobile phones (Aloteibi, 2022;
Tran, 2021), such that teachers and researchers expressed their concerns for mobile phones’ nega-
tive influence on students’ mental health. Specifically, Aloteibi (2022) reported that teachers
believed that when bans were in place, they noticed an increase in student socialization and col-
laboration, contributing to improvements in student social wellbeing. The relationship between
mobile phone bans and student well-being was also thought to be mediated by cyberbullying using
mobile phones (Aloteibi, 2022; Tran, 2021). However, it should be highlighted that this finding is
254 Journal of Psychologists and Counsellors in Schools 34(3)
speculative and remains to be tested. Evidence of the impact of mobile phone use and cyberbully-
ing is outlined in the next section on mobile phone use and cyberbullying.
Alternatively, four studies (Abrahamsson, n.d.; Guldvik & Kvinnsland, 2018; Tricoli, 2022;
Wike, 2020) found no evidence to support banning mobile phones in school to enhance student
mental health and wellbeing. In particular, Tricoli (2022) reported that teachers and administra-
tors observed students mentally break down due to being separated from their mobile phones
after a period of heavy reliance on these personal devices to study online during the COVID-19
pandemic. Likewise, Wike (2020) noted that students reported not having access to their mobile
phone was a source of anxiety. Tricoli and Wike’s findings suggest that removing phones might
increase student discomfort and anxiety. In two DiD estimation studies, Guldvik and Kvinnsland
(2018) measured lower secondary students’ social wellbeing (i.e. the extent to which students
were enjoying school) pre-post ban and found a trend for mobile phone bans to negatively
impact student wellbeing outcomes. Further, Abrahamsson (n.d.), found that students’ social
wellbeing remained stable pre-post ban; suggesting no causal relationship between mobile
phone bans and wellbeing. Notably, both these studies (Abrahamsson, n.d.; Guldvik &
Kvinnsland, 2018) categorized schools with bans as having strict prohibition of mobile phones
where students were either not allowed to bring their devices onto school grounds or had to
keep their phones locked up during school time.
Mobile Phone Use and Cyberbullying
Research supporting mobile phone bans for reduction in bullying and cyberbullying is also divided.
Five studies supported mobile phone bans for reduction of bullying and cyberbullying
(Abrahamsson, n.d.; Beneito & Vicente-Chirivella, 2022; Guldvik & Kvinnsland, 2018; Porter
et al., 2016; Toth, 2022). Beneito and Vicente-Chirivella (2022) investigated the impact of banning
mobile phones on bullying incidences among students in regions where bans were imposed, com-
pared to regions where they were not. They used DiD estimation in conjunction with synthetic
control method to compare the effects pre- versus post-ban. They found mobile phone bans were
unrelated to number of bullying cases in students under 12 years old, however bans were estimated
to be linked 15% to 18% reduction in bullying among children aged 12 to 14 years, and a decline
of 9.5% to 18% in 15 to 17 years age group. Studies using similar estimates methods reported com-
parable results. For example, Abrahamsson (n.d.) found a slight decrease (0.24–0.31 standard
deviation) in bullying incidences after 2 to 3 years of ban enforcement predominantly among girls,
and Guldvik and Kvinnsland’s (2018) found bans were associated with reduced bullying, particu-
larly for males in private schools. Using qualitative research, Porter et al. (2016) found students
believed that mobile phones facilitated cyberbullying, and Toth (2022) reported that administrators
believed that mobile phone bans decreased bullying and harassment. Taken together these quasi-
experiments (Abrahamsson, n.d.; Beneito & Vicente-Chirivella, 2022; Guldvik and Kvinnsland,
2018) and qualitative studies (Porter et al., 2016; Toth, 2022) support mobile phone bans for
decreasing incidences of bullying and cyberbullying.
On the other hand, two studies showed mobile phone bans at school was associated with higher
rates of online victimization (Davis & Koepke, 2016; Walker, 2013). Davis and Koepke (2016)
explored demographic risk factors contributing to likelihood of adolescents experiencing cyberbul-
lying and found the chances of receiving nasty and aggressive online communications was higher
at schools which had mobile phone restrictions. Likewise, Walker (2013) found that online victimi-
zation and harassment were more prevalent in a school that banned mobile phones in comparison
to a school that did not.
Campbell et al. 255
Discussion
The current scoping review explored the impact of mobile phone use in schools and academic
outcomes, mental health and wellbeing, and cyberbullying to draw inferences for and against ban-
ning mobile phones in schools. Twenty-two relevant studies were identified that provided incon-
clusive evidence to support the banning of mobile phones in schools.
Impact of Mobile Phone Use on Academic Outcomes
Many studies in the present review investigated the relationship between mobile phone restrictions
in schools, student learning and academic achievements. However, differences in research designs,
samples, operational definitions of bans (i.e. partial, or total bans) and measures used to capture
changes in academic outcomes made reconciliation of findings challenging. Due to this complex-
ity, interpretation of results informing policy requires a nuanced approach.
While four studies claimed increases in academic outcomes as a direct effect of mobile phone
bans relative to no restrictions (Abrahamsson, n.d.; Beland & Murphy, 2016; Beneito & Vicente-
Chirivella, 2022; Melattinkara, 2021), their findings are by no means clear-cut. First, Beneito and
Vicente-Chirivella (2022) and Melattinkara’s (2021) studies did not differentiate between partial
bans and complete bans, therefore it is possible that students in schools with bans in place were
in fact using their phones for learning purposes. This explanation is supported by Guldvik and
Kvinnsland (2018) who found no differences in academic outcomes in schools that strictly banned
mobile phone use throughout the school day. Second, Abrahamsson (n.d.) and Beland and
Murphy’s (2016) results were restricted to students from disadvantaged backgrounds and those
who had poorer academic achievements. The danger of accepting that mobile phone usage con-
tributes to poorer academic achievement based on Abrahamsson and Beland and Murphy’s evi-
dence is that it is likely that other characteristics in students from low socioeconomic backgrounds
and/or those who were struggling academically may have also contributed to the learning out-
comes. For example, it is possible that this group of students were more impulsive and/or distract-
ible and thus more vulnerable to the presence of mobile phones in the classroom. This explanation
concurs with Aloteibi’s (2022) findings that teachers believed under-achieving students struggled
more with distractibility from their phones in comparison to their more-able peers and Dacosta’s
(2021) suggestion that students who were more impulsive tended to be more adversely affected
by using mobile phones in class. Further, it is possible that students with academic problems
received variations in learning support across schools at the time the bans were imposed. Third,
three studies reported no differences in student academic achievement regardless of bans (Guldvik
& Kvinnsland, 2018; Kessel et al., 2020; Smith et al., 2018). Strengths across these studies sug-
gest results to be more reliable and generalizable. For instance, Guldvik and Kvinnsland (2018)
and Kessel et al. (2020) used large samples, 30% of schools in Norway (students 13–16 years) and
entire cohort in Sweden (aged 15–16 years), respectively, and measured academic achievement
using national standardized exams. While Smith et al. (2018) conducted a smaller study (students
aged 13–19 years), they manipulated mobile phone availability between groups and found no dif-
ferences on a recall test.
Students, parents, teachers and administrators, hereafter, educational stakeholders, were divided
in their attitudes towards whether mobile phone usage in schools impacts learning. Where studies
reported educational stakeholders’ concerns or articulated disadvantages such a distractibility and
facilitation of cheating, the same studies reported expressed advantages such as convenient internet
access to support learning (e.g. Aloteibi, 2022; Gao et al., 2017; Magnusson et al., 2017; Porter
et al., 2016; Roberts, 2019; Toth, 2022; Tran, 2021; Tricoli, 2022; Walker, 2013; Wike, 2020). We
256 Journal of Psychologists and Counsellors in Schools 34(3)
suggest that it is likely the politicians voicing concerns about mobile phone use distracting students
from learning and arguing for mobile phone bans in schools (Selwyn & Aagaard, 2021) are reflec-
tive of these subjective beliefs rather than evidence.
Despite the variability of findings, it seems that in some circumstances there are some negative,
although small, impacts of mobile phone use on academic outcomes. This suggests that restrictions
on mobile phones in schools might be beneficial for some students’ academic achievement but
make no difference to others. Policymakers, therefore, must focus on initiatives that return large
effect sizes, which is not the case in studies identified here. It is feasible that the integration of
mobile phones into classrooms as learning tools, coupled with education around responsible use,
might reverse any negative impacts of mobile phone use.
Impact of Mobile Phone Use on Student Mental Health and Wellbeing
Several studies in the current review explored educational stakeholders’ attitudes towards mobile
phone usage as it relates to student mental health and well-being. In terms of informing mobile
phone policies, the evidence suggested possible benefits alongside disadvantages. More specifi-
cally, while some stakeholders believed mobile phones had a negative impact on students’ mental
health (Aloteibi, 2022; Tran, 2021), other studies reported students are likely to feel anxious if they
are not able to check their phones regularly (Toth, 2022; Wike, 2020) and that such problem was
particularly evident as schools re-opened after COVID-19 (Tricoli, 2022). Two quasi-experimental
investigations, nonetheless, reported no significant effects of mobile phone bans on student social
wellbeing (Abrahamsson, n.d.; Guldvik & Kvinnsland, 2018).
Indeed, nomophobia (fear of ‘no mobile phone’) is reported to be a growing phenomenon
among Gen Z and thought to contribute to all kinds of negative consequences (Gentina et al.,
2018). For example, research has shown that mobile phone problems, such as nomophobia and
excessive use, are associated with social anxiety (Edwards et al., 2022), social phobia (King et al.,
2017), depression (Thomée et al., 2011) and suicide (Twenge & Campbell, 2018). Future research
is needed to examine if mobile phone bans reduce or exacerbate students’ anxiety and stress over
time and investigate whether targeted initiatives to educate students on responsible mobile phone
use can protect against any negative mental health consequences.
Impact of Mobile Phone Use on Cyberbullying
The evidence for banning of mobile phones on the grounds of reducing cyberbullying was mixed.
It is worth emphasizing that we chose to explore the impact of mobile phone use on both bullying
and cyberbullying in our review despite them not being synonymous but given that cyberbullying
accounts for only about 1.1% of bullying experiences (Thomas et al., 2017). Several studies found
a small reduction in bullying incidents (pre-post) in schools that imposed mobile phone bans espe-
cially in older students (Abrahamsson, n.d.; Beneito & Vicente-Chirivella, 2022; Guldvik &
Kvinnsland, 2018; Toth, 2022). Other work showed that educational stakeholders believed that
mobiles phones in schools facilitate cyberbullying (Porter et al., 2016; Toth, 2022), however two
studies showed that incidents of online victimization and harassment was greater in schools that
imposed mobile phone bans than schools that did not (Davis & Koepke, 2016; Walker, 2013). The
finding that students may be higher risk of being victimized online if their school prohibited mobile
phones was interesting (Davis & Koepke; Walker). One possible explanation may be because
schools enforcing strict mobile phone rules were promoting a punitive environment for students,
thereby reinforcing a negative school climate that has been found to be related to higher cyberbul-
lying incidences (Davis & Koepke).
Campbell et al. 257
It is crucial to recognize that banning mobile phones and not banning other available internet-
connected devices in schools is a simplistic solution which seems unlikely to have meaningful
impact. If students want to cyberbully, they could use any tool available to them at school, such as
laptops, tablets, smartwatches or library computers. Cyberbullying usually happens outside of
school hours and away from school grounds (Smith et al., 2008). It may begin in school in face-to-
face encounters and be transferred online after school. Banning phones also has the risk of driving
bullying behaviour underground or making them more devious (Brewer, 2014). Considered col-
lectively, removing mobile phones from schools is unlikely to have significant impact on
cyberbullying.
Reconciling with Theory
The present scoping review was guided by SDM (Bronfenbrenner, 1989; Fleming et al., 2010);
therefore, our review would not be complete without reconciling our findings with the theory.
Several findings aligned with SDM. We found that views of educational stakeholders typically
acknowledged the benefits of allowing mobile phones in classrooms and schools (see section
‘Relationship Between Mobile Phone Use and Learning’). From an SDM perspective learning
enhanced by technology, including mobile phones, represents a valuable adjunctive tool with the
added benefit of enhancing confidence in students capability to adapt to future technological
advancements. In the same way it strengthens our suggestion for schools to incorporate responsible
use of mobile phones as part of school curricula. We also found some evidence to suggest that ban-
ning mobile phones in schools reduced bullying (see section ‘Mobile Phone Use and Cyberbullying’).
However, while technology may facilitate how young people are being bullied, it is also how
young people remain connected to their friends. Therefore, in accord with SDM, allowing children
to feel a sense of connectedness and belonging to prosocial groups would likely buffer any nega-
tive impacts of mobile phone use on mental health and wellbeing. Hence, we suggest that based on
SDM’s principle of nested social ecologies, if young people feel more connected with their peers
online than offline, then using institutional policy to remove such technology from their lives could
indeed be harmful (McLoughlin et al., 2019). Interestingly, the findings that greater victimization
and harassment occurs in schools with mobile phone bans relative to schools without restrictions
(Davis & Koepke, 2016; Walker, 2013) might be representative of this account.
Implications for Future Research and Practice
Our scoping review showed that there is limited robust evidence to support the mobile phone ban
debate. There was also a lack of studies able to demonstrate cause and effect, such that many were
either cross-sectional or qualitative designs, and over half of the identified studies were unpub-
lished papers and therefore lack the rigour of the peer-review process. However, in order to be
inclusive as possible with the very small number of studies, we did include unpublished papers
which we acknowledge as a limitation. Many studies used a DiD estimation technique to examine
the causal relationships between mobile phone use and academic achievement. Although DiD esti-
mation helps address the challenge of establishing causal relationships by using a quasi-experi-
mental design, it relies on the assumption of parallel trends, which in this case means that it assumes
schools with and without mobile phone bans would have followed similar trends over time
(Bertrand et al., 2004). Which may or may not be the case. DiD estimation is also vulnerable to
spillover effects which can bias results. More precisely, where partial phone bans (allowing phones
to be used for learning purposes) were considered to be the same as complete bans represents a spill
over into the condition where no bans were in place (Bertrand et al.). It is therefore imperative that
258 Journal of Psychologists and Counsellors in Schools 34(3)
more rigorous studies (e.g. randomized controlled trails) are conducted to determine the potential
benefits and/or negative effects of mobile phone bans on student outcomes; academic, mental
health and wellbeing and cyberbullying. It is the task of educational researchers to take on this
challenge.
While research ‘catches up’, there is opportunity for policymakers and school administrators to
emphasize the importance of teaching critical digital literacy and responsible device use in schools.
Without the necessary education and support to safely navigate this digital space, providing chil-
dren with unrestricted and unfiltered access to mobile devices and technology may place them at
greater risk of harm from digital predators or unfiltered content. As evidenced in both quantitative
and qualitative studies in the current review, students’ demographics and developmental pathway
contribute to how they regulate mobile phone use at school. Additionally, we have shown that
students are cognisant of the benefits and challenges of mobile phone use at school, meanwhile,
bans may only be pushing students to be using their mobile devices in secret. For example, our
review highlighted the high possibility of students using mobile phones in school, even with an
understanding of its negative influences and regardless of bans (Gao et al., 2017; Howlett &
Waemusa, 2019; Walker, 2013). Such finding raises important questions about the realistic success
rates of implementing mobile phone bans at school. It further hints at an opportunity for teachers
to consider harnessing the benefits of mobile technology whilst mitigating its negative effects
through educative efforts directed at students, rather than reverting to outright bans. Taken together,
we recommend educating students in responsible phone use is a more sustainable and wholistic
attempt to address problematic usage rather than enacting whole-of-school banning policies.
Conclusion
The present review identified 22 relevant studies to answer questions about the impact of mobile
use on academic outcomes, mental health and wellbeing and cyberbullying. Studies were included
if they examined outcomes related to mobile phone bans and/or restrictions. We synthesized the
results to draw inferences for and/or against school mobile phone bans. Our consolidated findings
showed little to no conclusive evidence that ‘one-size-fits-all’ mobile phone bans in schools
resulted in improved academic outcomes, mental health and wellbeing and reduced cyberbullying.
Findings were nuanced and complex.
While banning mobile phones in schools has taken different approaches and rationalized from
either positive or negative standpoints, we have shown a significant lack of robust evidence on
which to base sound decisions. Given that technology is increasingly ingrained into the lives of
young people, decisions about the parameters of their mobile phone usage is critical. We argue that
schools are ideally placed for educating and safeguarding young people from the challenges related
to new technology. Thus, we call schools to action to educate students in responsible engagement
with mobile phones.
Author’s Note
There were no participants in this work.
Author Contributions
Marilyn Campbell: Conceptualization, Supervision, Methodology, Writing – Review and Editing. Elizabeth
Edwards: Methodology, Project Administration, Writing – Review and Editing. Donna Pennell:
Investigation, Writing – Original Draft. Shiralee Poed: Investigation, Writing – Original Draft. Victoria
Lister: Investigation. Jenna Gillett-Swan: Investigation. Adrian Kelly: Investigation. Dajana Zec:
Software, Investigation. Thuy-Anh Nguyen: Investigation, Writing – Reviewing and Editing.
Campbell et al. 259
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publi-
cation of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.
ORCID iDs
Marilyn Campbell https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4477-2366
Donna Pennell https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9446-8856
Shiralee Poed https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6038-2184
References
Abrahamsson, S. (n.d.). Distraction or teaching tool: Do smartphone bans in schools help students?
Norwegian Institute of Public Health. https://sites.google.com/view/saraabrahamsson/research
Aloteibi, S. (2022). The impact of smartphone usage on students: Teachers’ perspectives and classroom poli-
cies [Doctoral dissertation, California State University]. Proquest.
Arksey, H., & O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International
Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616
Ashenfelter, O. (1978). Estimating the effect of training programs on earnings. The Review of Economics and
Statistics, 60(1), 47–57. https://doi.org/10.2307/1924332
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychology Review, 84(2),
191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
Beland, L., & Murphy, R. (2016). III communication: Technology, distraction & student performance. Labour
Economics, 41(1), 61–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2016.04.004
Beneito, P., & Vicente-Chirivella, Ó. (2022). Banning mobile phones in schools: Evidence from regional-
level policies in Spain. Applied Economic Analysis, 30(90), 153–175. https://doi.org/10.1108/aea-05-
2021-0112
Bennett, R. (2020, January 8). Mobile phones in class help learning, top teacher claims. The Times. https://
www.thetimes.co.uk/article/mobile-phones-in-class-help-learning-top-teacher-claims-cdbdkh7fb
Bertrand, M., Duflo, E., & Mullainathan, S. (2004). How much should we trust differences-in-differences
estimates? The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 119(1), 249–275. https://doi.org/10.1162/00335
5304772839588
Bjornsen, C. A., & Archer, K. J. (2015). Relations between college students’ cell phone use during class and
grades. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 1(4), 326–336.
Brewer, J. (2014). Don’t ban smartphones in Australian high schools: Here’s why (and what we can do
instead). EduResearch Matters, Australian Association for Research in Education. https://www.aare.
edu.au/blog/?p=3066
Bromley, K. (2012). Using smartphones to supplement classroom reading. The Reading Teacher, 66(4), 340–
344. https://doi.org/10.1002/TRTR.01130
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1989). Ecological systems theory. In Vasta R. (Ed.), Annals of child development-six
theories of child development: Revised formulations and current issues (pp. 1–103). JAI.
Brown, D. (2019). Cellphone ban in Ontario classrooms starts today. CBC News. https://www.cbc.ca/news/
canada/toronto/cellphone-ban-ontario-classrooms-1.5346207
Catalano, R. F., & Hawkins, J. D. (1996). The social development model: A theory of antisocial behavior.
Cambridge University Press.
Catalano, R. F., Oesterle, S., Fleming, C. B., & Hawkins, J. D. (2004). The importance of bonding to school
for healthy development: Findings from the social development research group. Journal of School
Health, 74(7), 252–261. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1561.2004.tb08281.x
260 Journal of Psychologists and Counsellors in Schools 34(3)
Chen, Q., & Yan, Z. (2016). Does multitasking with mobile phones affect learning? Computers in Human
Behavior, 54(1), 34–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.07.047
Dacosta, L. H. (2021). Influence of cellphone distraction and impulsivity on high school senior students’
classroom engagement in the 21st century: A quantitative study [Doctoral dissertation, Northcentral
University]. Proquest.
Davis, K., & Koepke, L. (2016). Risk and protective factors associated with cyberbullying: Are relationships
or rules more protective? Learning, Media and Technology, 41(4), 521–545. https://doi.org/10.1080/17
439884.2014.994219
Duke, E., & Montag, C. (2017). Smartphone addiction, daily interruptions and self-reported productivity.
Addictive Behaviors Reports, 6(1), 90–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.abrep.2017.07.002
Education World. (n.d.). Schools, states review cell phone bans. https://www.educationworld.com/a_issues/
issues270.shtml
Edwards, E. J., Taylor, C. S., & Vaughan, R. S. (2022). Individual differences in self-esteem and social anxi-
ety predict problem smartphone use in adolescents. School Psychology International, 43(5), 460–476.
https://doi.org/10.1177/01430343221111061
Elhai, J. D., Levine, J. C., Dvorak, R. D., & Hall, B. J. (2016). Fear of missing out, need for touch, anxiety
and depression are related to problematic smartphone use. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 509–516.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.079
Environmental Health Trust. (2020). Schools are banning cell phones in the classroom: Elementary, mid-
dle and high schools in the USA and internationally. https://ehtrust.org/schools-banning-cell-phones-
classroom/
Ferreira, E., Silva, M. J., & Valente, D. C. (2018). Collaborative uses of ICT in education: Practices and
representations of preservice elementary school teachers. International Symposium on Computers in
Education (SIIE), Jerez (pp. 1–6). https://doi.org/10.1109/SIIE.2018.8586692
Fleming, C. B., Catalano, R. F., Haggerty, K. P., & Abbott, R. D. (2010). Relationships between level and
change in family, school, and peer factors during two periods of adolescence and problem behavior at
age 19. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39, 670–682. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-010-9526-5
Gao, Q., Yan, Z., Wei, C., Liang, Y., & Mo, L. (2017). Three different roles, five different aspects:
Differences and similarities in viewing school mobile phone policies among teachers, parents, and stu-
dents. Computers & Education, 106, 13–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.11.007
Gentina, E., Tang, T. L.-P., & Dancoine, P.-F. (2018). Does Gen Z’s emotional intelligence promote iCheat-
ing (cheating with iPhone) yet curb iCheating through reduced nomophobia? Computers & Education,
126, 231–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.07.011
Goldsmith, B. (2014, October 27). Media arts should be at the core of the Australian curriculum. The
Conversation. https://theconversation.com/media-arts-should-be-at-the-core-of-the-australian-curricu-
lum-33401
GSM Association & NTT DOCOMO. (2013). Children’s use of mobile phones – An international compari-
son 2013. https://www.gsma.com/publicpolicy/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/GSMA-NTT-DOCOMO-
Childrens-Report_ExecSummary_RR_Web1.pdf
GSM Association & NTT DOCOMO. (2016). Children’s use of mobile phones – An international compari-
son 2015. https://www.gsma.com/publicpolicy/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/GSMA_Report_Childrens-
use-of-mobile-phones-An-international-comparison-2015.pdf
Guldvik, M. K., & Kvinnsland, I. (2018). Smarter without smartphones? Effects of mobile phone bans in
schools on academic performance, well-being, and bullying [Master’s dissertation, Norwegian School
of Economics]. http://hdl.handle.net/11250/2586497
Harrison, H., Griffin, S. J., Kuhn, I., & Usher-Smith, J. A. (2020). Software tools to support title and abstract
screening for systematic reviews in healthcare: An evaluation. British Medical Council Medical Research
Methodology, 20(1), 7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-020-0897-3
Howlett, G., & Waemusa, Z. (2019). 21st century learning skills and autonomy: Students’ perceptions of
mobile devices in the Thai EFL Context. Teaching English with Technology, 19(1), 72–85.
Kates, A. W., Wu, H., & Coryn, C. L. S. (2018). The effects of mobile phone use on academic performance: A
meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 127, 107–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.08.012
Campbell et al. 261
Kessel, D., Lif Hardardottir, H., & Tyrefors, B. (2020). The impact of banning mobile phones in Swedish second-
ary schools. Economics of Education Review, 77, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2020.102009
King, A. L. S., Guedes, E., Neto, J. P., Guimarães, F., & Nardi, A. E. (2017). Nomophobia: Clinical and
demographic profile of social network excessive users. Journal of Addiction Research and Therapy,
8(4), 339.
Kleinman, Z. (2020, February 4). Half of UK 10-year-olds own a smartphone. BBC News Services. https://
www.bbc.com/news/technology-51358192
Kopecky, K., Fernandez-Martin, F. D., Szotkowski, R., Gomez-Garcia, G., & Mikulcova, K. (2021).
Behaviour of children and adolescents and the use of mobile phones in primary schools in the Czech
Republic. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(16), 8352. https://doi.
org/10.3390/ijerph18168352
Lepp, H. (2015). An investigation of decentralized networks based upon wireless mobile technologies.
Intersect: The Stanford Journal of Science, Technology, and Society, 8(2), 1–16.
Little, C. W. (2014). An investigation of digital technology use among high school students [Master’s thesis,
Florida State University]. Florida State University Libraries electronic theses, treatises and dissertations.
https://diginole.lib.fsu.edu/islandora/object/fsu:185282/datastream/PDF/view
Magnusson, A. G., Segerstad, Y. H. A., & Hashemi, S. S. (2017, July 3–5). Technology of choice: Challenges
and opportunities of mobile phones in school [Paper presentation]. 9th International Conference on
Education and New Learning Technologies, Barcelona, Spain.
McLoughlin, L. T., Spears, B. A., Taddeo, C. M., & Hermens, D. F. (2019). Remaining connected in the face
of cyberbullying: Why social connectedness is important for mental health. Psychology in the Schools,
56(6), 945–958. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22232
Melattinkara, R. S. (2021). Smart devices in classrooms and academic performance: A causal-comparative
study of academic performance at Los Angeles Area High Schools [Doctoral dissertation, Northcentral
University]. Proquest.
Munn, Z., Peters, M. D., Stern, C., Tufanaru, C., McArthur, A., & Aromataris, E. (2018). Systematic review or
scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach.
BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x
Neumann, C. (2016). Teaching digital natives: Promoting information literacy and addressing instructional
challenges. Reading Improvement, 53(3), 101–106.
Norris, C., Hossain, A., & Soloway, E. (2011). Using smartphones as essential tools for learning: A call to
place schools on the right side of the 21st century. Educational Technology, 51(3), 18–25.
Orlando, J. (2019, September 4). School phone ban is moral panic based on no evidence. The Sydney Morning
Herald. https://www.smh.com.au/education/school-phone-ban-is-moral-panic-based-on-no-evidence-
20190903-p52nnt.html
Park, J. H. (2020). Smartphone use patterns of smartphone-dependent children. Child Health Nursing
Research, 26(1), 47–54. https://doi.org/10.4094/chnr.2020.26.1.47
Porter, G., Hampshire, K., Milner, J., Munthali, A., Robson, E., de Lannoy, A., Bango, A., Gunguluza, N.,
Mashiri, M., Tanle, A., & Abane, A. (2016). Mobile phones and education in Sub-Saharan Africa:
From youth practice to public policy. Journal of International Development, 28(1), 22–39. https://doi.
org/10.1002/jid.3116
Roberts, K. (2019). A study of technology integration while minimizing distractions in secondary school
classrooms: Mixed methods study [Doctoral dissertation, Trident University International]. Proquest.
Selwyn, N., & Aagaard, J. (2021). Banning mobile phones from classrooms-An opportunity to advance
understandings of technology addiction, distraction and cyberbullying. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 52(1), 8–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12943
Škařupová, K., Ólafsson, K., & Blinka, L. (2016). The effect of smartphone use on trends in European ado-
lescents’ excessive Internet use. Behaviour & Information Technology, 35(1), 68–74. https://doi.org/10
.1080/0144929X.2015.1114144
Smith, P. K., Smith, C., Osborn, R., & Samara, M. (2008). A content analysis of school anti-bullying
policies: progress and limitations. Educational Psychology in Practice, 24(1), 1–12. https://doi.
org/10.1080/02667360701661165
262 Journal of Psychologists and Counsellors in Schools 34(3)
Smith, H. E., Blackburn, J. J., Stair, K., & Burnett, M. (2018). Assessing the effects of the smartphone as a
learning tool on the academic achievement of school-based agricultural education students in Louisiana.
Journal of Agricultural Education, 59(4), 270–285. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2018.04270
Sparkes, D. (2019, November 21). Half of all Australian kids have hands on mobile phones, according to
Communication and Media Authority survey. ABC News. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-11-21/
phone-use-rises-among-australian-children/11722920
Strider, J., Locke, K., Richardson, I., & Third, A. (2012). Intergenerational approaches towards enhancing
parents’ knowledge and practice in online safety. ‘Living Lab’ Research Report. http://www.youngan-
dwellcrc.org.au/knowledge-hub/publications/intergenerational-approaches-towards-enhancing-parents-
knowledge-practice-online-safety/
Thomas, H. J., Connor, J. P., Lawrence, D. M., Hafekost, J. M., Zubrick, S. R., & Scott, J. G. (2017).
Prevalence and correlates of bullying victimisation and perpetration in a nationally representative sam-
ple of Australian youth. Australia and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 51, 909–920. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0004867417707819
Thomée, S., Härenstam, A., & Hagberg, M. (2011). Mobile phone use and stress, sleep disturbances, and
symptoms of depression among young adults-a prospective cohort study. BMC Public Health, 11(1), 66.
https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-11-66
Toth, D. M. (2022). Ohio principals with students in grades 6 through 12 and their perceptions and pro-
cedures on student cell phone use within their schools [Doctoral dissertation, Youngstown State
University]. Proquest.
Tran, A. (2021). Perceptions of the influence of cell phones and social media usage on students’ academic
performance [Doctoral dissertation, San Jose State University]. Proquest.
Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O’Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., Moher, D., Peters, M. D. J.,
Horsley, T., Weeks, L., Hempel, S., Akl, E. A., Chang, C., McGowan, J., Stewart, L., Hartling, L.,
Aldcroft, A., Wilson, M. G., Garritty, C., & . . . Straus, S. E. (2018). PRISMA extension for scop-
ing reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 169(7), 467–473.
https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850
Tricoli, M. (2022). Teacher perceptions of cell phone use during the instructional school day [Doctoral dis-
sertation, St. John’s University]. Proquest.
Trucano, M. (2015, July 24). Banning and unbanning phones in school. World Bank Blogs. https://blogs.
worldbank.org/edutech/banning-and-unbanning-phones-schools
Twenge, J. M., & Campbell, W. K. (2018). Associations between screen time and lower psychological well-
being among children and adolescents: Evidence from a population-based study. Preventive Medicine
Reports, 12, 271–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmedr.2018.10.003
Twenge, J. M., Spitzberg, B. H., & Campbell, W. K. (2019). Less in-person social interaction with peers
among US adolescents in the 21st century and links to loneliness. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 36(6), 1892–1913. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407519836170
Walker, R. (2013). ‘I don’t think I would be where I am right now’. Pupil perspectives on using mobile
devices for learning. Association for Learning Technology Journal. Research in Learning Technology,
21(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v21i0.22116
Wike, S. P. (2020). A mixed methods study on the student perspective of having individual access to smart-
phones at school [Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida]. Proquest.
Wong, A. (2014, November 11). When lifting a school cellphone ban is a win for poor students. The Atlantic.
https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/11/why-the-end-of-the-school-cellphone-ban-is-a-
win-for-poor-students/382601/
Campbell et al. 263
Appendix. Database searches.
Date Database Search string Explanation Number
retrieved
Original searches
19/09/2021 Web of Science (((((((AB=("mobile phone" OR "cell phone" OR "smart phone" OR cellphone OR
smartphone OR phone OR "mobile device")) OR TI=("mobile phone" OR "cell phone"
OR "smart phone" OR cellphone OR smartphone OR phone OR "mobile device"))
AND AB=(school* OR education* OR class*)) AND AB=(bullying OR cyberbullying OR
harass* OR "mental health" OR anxiety OR depression OR wellbeing OR "well being"
OR achievement OR learn* OR attention OR distract* OR disrupt* OR cheat* OR
addiction)) AND AB=(ban* OR restrict* OR policy OR rule)) NOT AB=(university OR
undergraduate)) AND PY=(2007-2021)) AND LA=(English)
Abstract 519
20/09/2021 APA PsycINFO Journal Title: "mobile phone" OR Journal Title: "cell phone" OR Journal Title: "smart
phone" OR Journal Title: cellphone OR Journal Title: smartphone OR Journal Title:
phone OR Journal Title: "mobile device" OR Abstract: "mobile phone" OR Abstract: "cell
phone" OR Abstract: "smart phone" OR Abstract: cellphone OR Abstract: smartphone
OR Abstract: phone OR Abstract: "mobile device" AND Abstract: school* OR Abstract:
education* OR Abstract: class* AND Abstract: bullying OR Abstract: cyberbullying OR
Abstract: harass* OR Abstract: "mental health" OR Abstract: anxiety OR Abstract:
depression OR Abstract: wellbeing OR Abstract: "well being" OR Abstract: achievement
OR Abstract: learn* OR Abstract: attention OR Abstract: distract* OR Abstract:
disrupt* OR Abstract: cheat* OR Abstract: addiction AND Abstract: ban* OR Abstract:
restrict* OR Abstract: policy OR Abstract: rule NOT Abstract: university OR Abstract:
undergraduate AND Language: English AND Year: 2007-2021
Title & Abstract 102
20/09/2021 ProQuest
Databases
(ERIC, Education
database, Proquest
Dissertations and
Thesis, Social
Science Database)
((ab("mobile phone" OR "cell phone" OR "smart phone" OR cellphone OR smartphone
OR phone OR "mobile device") OR ti("mobile phone" OR "cell phone" OR "smart
phone" OR cellphone OR smartphone OR phone OR "mobile device")) AND ab(school*
OR education* OR class*) AND ab(bullying OR cyberbullying OR harass* OR "mental
health" OR anxiety OR depression OR wellbeing OR "well being" OR achievement OR
learn* OR attention OR distract* OR disrupt* OR cheat* OR addiction) AND ab(ban*
OR restrict* OR policy OR rule*)) NOT ab(university OR undergraduate)
Abstract 529
(Continued)
264 Journal of Psychologists and Counsellors in Schools 34(3)
Date Database Search string Explanation Number
retrieved
20/09/2021 A+ Education [Abstract: 'mobile phone' OR Abstract: 'cell phone' OR Abstract: 'smart phone' OR
Abstract: cellphone OR Abstract: smartphone OR Abstract: phone OR Abstract: 'mobile
device'] AND [Abstract: school* OR Abstract: education* OR Abstract: class*] AND
[Abstract: bullying OR Abstract: cyberbullying OR Abstract: harass* OR Abstract:
'mental health' OR Abstract: anxiety OR Abstract: depression OR Abstract: wellbeing
OR Abstract: 'well being' OR Abstract: achievement OR Abstract: learn* OR Abstract:
attention OR Abstract: distract* OR Abstract: disrupt* OR Abstract: cheat* OR
Abstract: addiction] AND [Abstract: ban* OR Abstract: restrict* OR Abstract: policy
OR Abstract: rule*] AND NOT [All Fields: university OR All Fields: undergraduate]
AND Databases: A+Education AND Publication Date: (01/07/2007 TO 31/12/2021)
AND Language: English
Abstract 6
Updated searches
22/05/23 Web of Science (((((((AB=("mobile phone" OR "cell phone" OR "smart phone" OR cellphone OR
smartphone OR phone OR "mobile device")) OR TI=("mobile phone" OR "cell phone"
OR "smart phone" OR cellphone OR smartphone OR phone OR "mobile device"))
AND AB=(school* OR education* OR class*)) AND AB=(bullying OR cyberbullying OR
harass* OR "mental health" OR anxiety OR depression OR wellbeing OR "well being"
OR achievement OR learn* OR attention OR distract* OR disrupt* OR cheat* OR
addiction)) AND AB=(ban* OR restrict* OR policy OR rule)) NOT AB=(university OR
undergraduate)) AND PY=(2007-2021)) AND LA=(English) Publication Date 20/09/21
to 22/05/23
Abstract 28
22/05/23 APA PsycINFO TI ( "mobile phone" OR "cell phone" OR "smart phone" OR cellphone OR smartphone
OR phone OR "mobile device" ) OR AB ( "mobile phone" OR "cell phone" OR "smart
phone" OR cellphone OR smartphone OR phone OR "mobile device" ) AND AB (
school* OR education* OR class* ) AND AB ( bullying OR cyberbullying OR harass*
OR "mental health" OR anxiety OR depression OR wellbeing OR "well being" OR
achievement OR learn* OR attention OR distract* OR disrupt* OR cheat* OR
addiction ) AND AB ( ban* OR restrict* OR policy OR rule ) NOT AB ( university OR
undergraduate ) ENGLISH Publication Date 09/2021 to 05/2023
Title & Abstract 61
(Continued)
Appendix. (Continued)
Campbell et al. 265
Date Database Search string Explanation Number
retrieved
20/05/23 ProQuest
Databases
(ERIC, Education
database, Proquest
Dissertations and
Thesis, Social
Science Database)
(((abstract(school* OR education* OR class*) AND abstract(bullying OR cyberbullying
OR harass* OR "mental health" OR anxiety OR depression OR wellbeing OR "well
being" OR achievement OR learn* OR attention OR distract* OR disrupt* OR
cheat* OR addiction) AND abstract(ban* OR restrict* OR policy OR rule) NOT
abstract(university OR undergraduate)) AND la.exact("English") AND pd(20210920-
20230520)) AND la.exact("English")) AND (((abstract("mobile phone" OR "cell phone"
OR "smart phone" OR cellphone OR smartphone OR phone OR "mobile device") OR
title("mobile phone" OR "cell phone" OR "smart phone" OR cellphone OR smartphone
OR phone OR "mobile device")) AND la.exact("English") AND pd(20210920-20230520))
AND la.exact("English"))
Abstract 68
22/05/23 A+ Education [Abstract:"mobile phone" OR Abstract:"cell phone" OR Abstract:"smart phone"
OR Abstract:cellphone OR Abstract:smartphone OR Abstract:phone OR
Abstract:"mobile device" OR Abstract:school* OR Abstract:education* OR
Abstract:class* OR Abstract:bullying OR Abstract:cyberbullying OR Abstract:harass*]
AND [Abstract:"mental health" OR Abstract:anxiety OR Abstract:depression]
AND [Abstract:wellbeing OR Abstract:"well being" OR Abstract:achievement OR
Abstract:learn* OR Abstract:attention OR Abstract:distract* OR Abstract:disrupt*
OR Abstract:cheat* OR Abstract:addiction OR Abstract:ban* OR Abstract:restrict*
OR Abstract:policy OR Abstract:rule* OR Abstract:cheat*] AND [Abstract:ban*
OR Abstract:restrict* OR Abstract:policy OR Abstract:rule*] AND NOT [All Fields:
university OR All Fields: undergraduate] AND
Publication Date: (01/09/2021 TO 22/05/2023)
Abstract 4
Appendix. (Continued)
