Keys to Successful Smartphone Use in the Religious Classroom
Brandon Comstock
Crimson Ridge Seminary
St George, Utah
Abstract
Smartphones in the religious classroom can be a two-edged sword. While the resources available
through the Gospel Library app offer an abundance of potential for learning opportunities, the
wealth of distractions associated with smartphones can cause many to question the prudence of
their use in the religious classroom. This paper explores both elements of the smartphone
dilemma. The first portion will review the literature on the negative impact of distractions on
learning outcomes. The second portion will address the literature on the potential benefits of
smartphones as a learning tool in the classroom, focusing on the research related to the utilization
of the Gospel Library app. In addition to a literature review, this paper will offer several
suggestions on best practices teachers can utilize to help their students righteously utilize
smartphones, and meet the Objective of Seminaries and Institutes.
Introduction
In 2007 Steve Jobs stood before an eager audience and introduced what he described as
"a revolutionary and magical product" that came to be known as the smartphone (Apple
Newsroom, 2010). Twelve years later, it's hard to argue with his prediction. Still, the
smartphone's ramifications have been far more nuanced than most were able to foresee after
hearing Jobs' glowing introduction.
From the perspective of religious educators, the smartphone presents a challenging
dichotomy. On the one hand, smartphones give students access to endless amounts of material to
enhance their learning experience. Still, ironically, in the same hand, it provides students access
to a seemingly infinite amount of distractions that can seriously impair their learning experience.
This paper will address both sides of the smartphone dilemma. First, we will review the
relevant literature on the impact of smartphone distractions on learning. We will then pivot to
review the literature on how teachers and students can best utilize smartphones to enhance
learning and fulfill the Objective of Seminaries and Institutes.
Smartphones as a Distraction
In recent years, support for using smartphones as an educational tool has grown (Thomas,
O'Bannon, & Bolton, 2013). Still, the reality is that most of the time that students spend on their
smartphones has very little to do with education (Lin, Zhang, Jung, & Kim, 2013). One study
found that 48% of all apps on students' phones were games, while just 3% were educational
(Tossell, Kortum, Shephard, Rahmati, & Zhong, 2015). This discrepancy illustrates the most
significant challenge to properly utilizing smartphones in the classroom; While teachers seek to
use smartphones as an educational tool, most students view them as an entertainment device or a
toy (Noyes & Garland, 2005). As a result, smartphones often work as a trigger to divert attention
away from students' studies rather than enhance it.
Several studies have sought to quantify the impact of digital distractions. End,
Worhtman, Matthews, and Wetterau (2010) tested the effect of a phone ringing in class on
students' ability to recall material. The researchers placed calls to two fellow researchers posing
as subjects in the test group who allowed their phones to ring for exactly five seconds before
silencing them. A post-movie assessment showed that students exposed to the ringing had a 25%
reduction in the recall of material covered during the period that the phone was ringing compared
to the control group.
Froese et al. conducted a similar study but focused instead on the impact of texting.
Experimenters asked subjects to watch a ten-minute PowerPoint presentation, with half of the
subjects turning their devices off. The other half received periodic texts from the researchers
throughout the presentation. Those in the texting group scored 27% lower on the subsequent
comprehension test than those in the control group. When considering the overwhelming number
of students who openly admit to engaging in these behaviors during class (Tindell, & Bohlander,
2012), educators' concerns about the impact of smartphone use in the classroom are wellfounded.
Unfortunately, smartphone distractions may stretch even farther than those caused by
actual use in the classroom. Several studies are now suggesting that the mere presence of a
smartphone may be enough to have significant negative impacts on learning, even when students
are not actively using them. For example, Bowman, Levine, Waite, and Gendron (2010) placed
students into one of three groups and asked them to read a 3800-word essay. Group one received
a series of instant messages before they began reading—group two received messages
throughout their reading. Group three served as the control, receiving no messages. While
students in all three groups scored similarly on the recall test, the time it took to complete the
reading was significantly different for each group. Surprisingly, the control group was not the
fastest. Students who received messages before they began reading completed the reading nearly
nine minutes faster (28.63 minutes) than those in the control group (37.44 minutes). The author
explained the outcome this way:
The instructions given to the three groups may have had an impact. Each participant
received instructions that they would receive IM's before reading, during reading, or not
at all. Those who received the IMs at the beginning may have realized that they would
not receive any more IMs and could attend to the passage they were reading without
thinking they might be interrupted (pg. 4).
In essence, the very thought that they might receive a message was enough to impact the
subjects' learning experience significantly.
While the idea that the thought of being distracted is enough to impact a student sounds
far-fetched, additional studies seem to support the idea. One study provided subjects with a series
of single-spaced digits and asked them to perform either a simple task (circling each occurrence
of the number five) or a more complex task (circling each pair of consecutive digits that added
up to eleven). Researchers then innocuously placed either a smartphone or a spiral notebook on
the table where subjects were completing the work. While a smartphone's presence had no
impact on the simpler task, those who completed the complex task in the presence of a
smartphone performed much poorer than those in the notebook group (Thornton, Faires,
Robbins, & Rollins, 2014).
Przybylski and Weinstein used a similar design to take the experiment one step further by
exploring whether the mere presence of a phone would negatively affect their subject's
perception of a partners trust and empathy. Researchers asked subjects to talk to each other for
ten minutes on either a casual topic (their feelings on plastic Christmas trees) or a meaningful
topic (the most meaningful event that had happened in the past month). Researchers then placed
either a spiral notebook or a smartphone on the table as participants talked. At the end of the
period, researchers asked subjects to rate their partner on statements like: "I felt like I could
really trust my conversation partner" and "my partner accurately understood my thoughts and
feelings about the topic." While smartphones had no impact on casual conversations, subjects in
the meaningful discussions reported significantly less empathy and trust when a smartphone was
present instead of a notebook (Przybylski, Weinstein, 2013).
In both of the above studies, the device used did not belong to the subjects and never
rang, buzzed, or lit up during the experiment. Still, the mere presence of a smartphone was
sufficient to negatively impact both complex thinking and the establishment of meaningful
relationships. Most alarmingly, smartphones' impact seems to be particularly poignant on deeplevel processing and application of knowledge to new settings. As one author put it,
Even if distraction does not decrease the overall level of learning, it can result in the
acquisition of knowledge that can be applied less flexibly in new situations. There's a
possibility that we are raising a generation that is learning more shallowly than young
people in the past" (Paul, 2013: pg. 2).
Given the current emphasis on obtaining deep learning in Seminaries and Institutes, these
findings should be cause for concern.
While such concerns are shared by church leadership, the direction for gospel teachers is
both clear and comforting. In 1995, long before the smartphone existed, President Howard W.
Hunter prophesied that "the role of technology in this work has been accelerated and will
continue to do so. However, we stand only on the threshold of what we can do" (Hunter, 1995).
Years later, Elder Richard G Scott taught that "Technology, when understood and used for
righteous purposes, need not be a threat but rather an enhancement to spiritual communication"
(Scott, 2013). In the most recent years, Church leadership has been even more direct in their
invitations to accept technology's role. Elder Gary E. Stevenson invited gospel teachers to "teach
and demonstrate the righteous use of technology to the rising generation" (Stevenson, 2017).
Likewise, Brian Ashton (2018) issued an invitation from the General Sunday School Presidency
for all teachers to "Embrace technology in their lessons and make every effort to help youth learn
to use technology for righteous purposes."
Sadly, the optimistic tone in the quotes above is often absent when parents and teachers
express their feelings about smartphones in the classroom. Instead, teachers often focus on and
emphasize technology's pitfalls, with benefits mentioned only as an afterthought. One study on
communication between parents and teens about smartphones concluded that "while parents
report that they communicate with their children about technology use, their children say that
parents only tell them which behaviors to avoid" rather than which behaviors to pursue
(Blackwell, Gardiner, & Shoenbeck, 2016, pg. 1390). With that in mind, it should come as no
surprise that study after study has found that students struggle to view smartphones as devices
they can use for serious academic study (Baron, 2017; Chen, Cheng, Chang Zheng, & Huang,
2014; Keim, 2014; Nichols, 2016; Nichols, 2018; Noyes & Garland, 2005; Rosenwald, 2014;
Tossell, Kortum, Shephard, Rahmati, Zhong, 2015). Ironically, given the significant impact of
viewing smartphones as a distraction, this constant labeling of smartphones as a barrier to
learning may inhibit students from seeing smartphones as a serious tool, instead magnifying their
distraction when they are asked to learn in a smartphone filled environment. In other words,
lectures on the pitfalls of smartphones may be leading to more smartphone distractions.
Smartphones as a Tool
How, then, should teachers handle the challenges of smartphones? The key to the
situation seems to be orchestrating a switch in both teachers' and students' minds about
smartphones' purpose and role. Rather than encouraging students to view their devices as
distractions, teachers must help students learn to see their devices as a tool to help them grow
closer to their Heavenly Father. Only when teachers and students' mindset about the role of
smartphones in the classroom has changed will the desired results manifest themselves.
The remainder of this paper will outline six best practices for religious educators to help
facilitate that change and help their students use their smartphones righteously in the classroom.
Each of the practices will explore relevant literature before offering practical suggestions for
implementation in the classroom. It is worth noting that while smartphones in the classroom have
a variety of potential applications, this paper's scope will focus primarily on the effective
utilization of the Gospel Library app. Future research opportunities should explore alternative
methods of smartphone learning.
Practice #1 - Train
On the surface, the expectation that students should inherently know how to use their
smartphones makes sense. In today's world, both reading and smartphone use are a part of most
children's upbringing. However, on closer examination, for this argument to be valid, two
assumptions must hold: 1) smartphone reading must be the same as print reading, and 2) using a
device for study must require the same skills as using a device for entertainment and
communication.
In reality, digital study is, in many ways, an entirely different experience than studying in
print. Studies have shown a difference in eye strain (Kang, Wang, & Lin, 2009), posture
(Taipale, 2015), navigation methods (Sanders, 2017), emotional attachment to the content
(MacWilliam, 2013), reading speed, and others; each of which plays a significant role in the
readers reading experience, and comprehension of texts.
Likewise, utilizing a smartphone for serious study requires very different skills than using
a device for personal entertainment. As one author put it, "it cannot be assumed that knowing
how to look up 'cheats' for computer games on the internet bears any relation to the skills
required to assess a website's relevance for a school project" (Bennett, Maton, & Kervin, 2008).
Given the differences in print and digital reading, teachers should not assume that
students intrinsically know how to utilize their digital scriptures. Providing students with
effective training on how to utilize even basic aspects of resources like the Gospel Library app is
critical to the success of smartphone usage in the classroom. Schugar, Schugar, and Penny
(2011) found that while 50% of students highlighted paper texts on a daily basis, just 14.3% did
the same when reading digitally. Likewise, Bold and Wagstaff (2017) found that while 74% of
subjects in their study had written notes in a paper book's margins, just 35% had written notes in
a digital book, despite the majority of students expressing a desire to do so. In each of the
studies, the consensus amongst researchers on digital annotation was that "more would do so if
they knew how or if the particular format allowed them" (Mizrachi, 2015, pg. 304).
For some teachers, hesitancy to train students on the basics may come from their students'
reassurance that they know how to use the resources. Unfortunately, students regularly
overestimate their abilities to utilize technology (Dunning, Johnson, Ehrlinger, & Kruger, 2003).
For example, in an unpublished study of 331 incoming freshman seminary students, 82%
reported already having the app installed on their smartphone, and 65% reported knowing how to
use the device either "very well" or "extremely well." However, when asked more specifically
about their knowledge, just 41% of students knew how to log-in using their LDSAccount.
Likewise, only 17% knew how to create a link, one of the app's core annotation features
(Comstock, 2016). The study affirmed the idea mentioned above that students often overestimate
their proficiency in smartphone use.
In contrast, some students may have sufficient knowledge of how a tool works but lack
the familiarity to know how to utilize it effectively. VanHorne, Russell, and Schuh (2016)
conducted a study to find out how long it took students to use the various features of an etextbook. Researchers were surprised to find that even after completing training on how to utilize
the features on the first day of class, the average student took 28 days to make their first
highlight. None of the other features ever obtained enough use to reach a median. The
researchers emphasized that adoption rates were much higher when instructors offered ongoing
training. They concluded that "as part of the course, learners may need to carry out several
activities in which they are provided structured guidance on effective note-taking, bookmarking,
and annotating" to be able to use the tools effectively (pg. 428).
While these trainings take time, the results seem to be worth the effort. Azevedo and
Cromley (2004) found that students who received sufficient training on reading digital texts saw
significantly higher comprehension than those who received no training. Likewise, while some
studies have suggested that the benefits of asking students to annotate digitally are not as
beneficial as asking them to annotate in print (Ben-Yehuda & Ehest-Alakalai 2014), when
students are trained on the use of in-depth processing skills like tagging main phrases, the
comprehension gap disappears (Lauterman & Ackerman, 2014) and students' motivation to read
increases dramatically (Durham, & Raymond, 2016). Given the literature, it seems evident that
the successful usage of smartphones in the classroom requires consistent, ongoing, specific
training on how to utilize important features.
Practice #2 - Model
While training is critical, it represents just half of Elder Stevenson's call to "teach and
demonstrate the righteous use of technology to the rising generation" (Stevenson, 2017). Perhaps
more important than the impact of training students on technical skills, is the impact of modeling
the use of smartphones as an effective study tool. Then-President Dieter F Uchtdorf (2018)
taught that "The most effective way to preach the gospel is through example." Likewise, it may
be that the most effective way to teach technology is through modeling. In the battle to change
perceptions about smartphones' purpose in the classroom, modeling by respected leaders may
serve as the primary tool to help students see their devices the way church leaders invite them.
Since most of the time students spend on smartphones is casual, many students struggle
to view their smartphones as a serious study tool (Baron, 2017; Mizrachi, 2015; Noyes &
Garland, 2005). Fortunately, research has shown that effective modeling can change that. One
study surveyed students at the beginning of a course and found that just 22% of students
preferred to use a digital text. However, after being exposed to the instructor's modeling of the
digital text on the projector throughout the semester, 50% of the students reported that they
preferred it over the printed version, and 65% said that the features of the digital version
enhanced their learning experience (Dobler, 2015). Training and modeling had changed the
student's perspectives on the usefulness of the digital text.
To accomplish such results, teachers need to understand the inherent differences in digital
and print reading. Traditional reading uses a linear approach. The author controls what the reader
views and guides them from start to finish down a designated path. Digital reading, however,
utilizes a series of hyperlinks and digital connections to create a non-linear reading approach. In
this style, the reader takes charge of which content they will view next (Mangen, Walgermo, &
Brønnick 2013; Schugar, Schugar, & Penny 2011). While the opportunity to dive deeper into any
given topic increases the potential for deep learning, the added complexity comes at a cost.
Specifically, the energy used to organize and process the information can become a drain on
students' ability to focus on a particular topic and decrease total comprehension.
Given the differences in digital and paper reading, both training and modeling should
focus on the functions of the Gospel Library app that help students organize and make sense of
the material. Long before smartphones, Elder Boyd K Packer explained it this way:
Our youth need to know how to mark the scriptures, and they need to have some kind of
filing system. In addition to that, if you give each one of them a framework upon which
the truths they discover at random can be organized into a personal testimony, you will
have served them well (Packer, 1993)
The Gospel Library app utilizes five core annotation features, highlighting, tagging, notes,
notebooks, and links. While research has shown that these features significantly impact
comprehension and student enjoyment of reading (Durham, & Raymond, 2016), research also
shows that unless students are provided with modeling from either their peers or their instructor,
to use as a scaffolding for their own annotations, the benefits of use were negligible (Johnson,
Archibald, & Tenenbaum, 2010).
In practice, modeling smartphone usage in the classroom is quite simple. The more students
become familiar and comfortable utilizing their devices, the more capable they will be using
them for deep learning (Chen, Cheng, Chang, Zheng, & Huang, 2014). Instructors can mirror
their device using a projector, then briefly explain their annotation decisions. The following are
some suggested phrases for teachers to utilize while modeling the Gospel Library app for their
students:
 "I chose to highlight this in blue because. . ."
 "You can see that I wrote that principle in the margins."
 "I wanted to be able to find that quote later, so I tagged it as. . . "
 "I'd like you to take a minute and write in your journal about what you've felt today;
here's what I wrote in mine."
 "When I read this, it reminded me of my favorite talk from last General Conference, so I
linked it to this verse."
In addition to the annotation features, instructors may wish to model practical usage of the search
and share functions in the Gospel Library app.
Before moving on, it is worth mentioning one warning about modeling. While there will
certainly be times when teachers need to show students how to navigate through the content, the
purpose of modeling is to give students an effective framework, not to help them replicate what
the teacher has done. Dowd and Green (2016) were emphatic about this point:
Do not let students attempt to follow you click by click. This does not work. Keeping a
group of twenty in the same place when going through multiple clicks is impossible. . .
Ask students to put their devices down and watch you go through all the steps. You will
find at least half of the students can then proceed independently, and you can empower
the students to ask each other for help (pg. 53).
Practice #3 - Simplify
Much of the difficulty for students trying to learn both the Gospel, and the Gospel
Library app can be explained through cognitive load theory (Sweller, 1994). The concept of
cognitive load is simple. Each person has a fixed amount of capacity for processing information
at one time. Each task they complete utilizes some degree of that capacity. When a person is less
familiar with an activity, it typically requires more cognitive energy. However, with practice, an
activity can become nearly automatic and require very little cognitive capacity (Antonenko,
Niederhauser, 2010; Mangen, Walgermo, Bronick, 2013; Niederhasuer, Reynolds, Salmen, &
Skolmoski, 2000).
For digital reading, this concept is critical. Since most students' reading experience comes
from printed books, and most students' smartphone experience comes from leisure activities,
when students first begin studying on a smartphone, the cognitive load is significant (Nichols,
2016). This considerable burden is likely why multiple surveys have found that readers still
prefer to do serious reading on paper (Baron, 2017; Dobler, 2015; Kurata, Ishita, Miyata, &
Minami, 2017; Noyes & Garland, 2005; Two Sides, 2015; Scholastic, 2015). It is also likely why
college students' preferences for print or digital material shift dramatically towards digital
reading as they obtain more years of experience with the format (Nichols, 2018). When students
are new to digital reading, the additional cognitive load associated with learning to use the
format makes it harder to study effectively, but once they have obtained sufficient experience,
that demand is negligible.
For gospel teachers, the implication is simple. The more complicated the use of Gospel
Library is for a student, the less cognitive space the student will have to focus on the lesson's
content. For this reason, it is wise for religious educators to do all that they can to make the use
of the Gospel Library app as intuitive and simple as possible. Within the Gospel Library app, two
main areas present the greatest simplification possibilities: navigation and annotation.
Ironically, the abundance of material available on the Gospel Library app is both the main
reason it is such a useful tool, and the main reason its navigation can be taxing. For example, if a
student were reading from the scriptures and wanted to get access to the previously mentioned
Elder Stevenson quote, the student would have to use the following steps:
1. Select the screen manager,
2. select the add screen button,
3. select General Conference,
4. select the October 2017 session,
5. scroll to the Saturday afternoon session,
6. select "Spiritual Eclipses,"
7. and scroll to the thirty-second paragraph.
Since each task exerts additional demands on the students' cognitive load, the seven-step process
of reaching the quote is likely to result in the student losing engagement with the lesson.
Instead, a teacher seeking to reduce that load may invite students to select the search bar,
then type in "teach and demonstrate" in quotations in the search field. If students type in the
phrase in quotations, their search will yield just one general conference talk. When the student
selects the talk, they are taken directly to the appropriate paragraph without scrolling,
significantly reducing their cognitive load demand.
Even better, a teacher may use the share function in the Gospel
Library app to generate a paragraph specific link. Once the teacher has
generated a link in the Gospel Library app, they can use a free QR code
generator to create a paragraph specific link that will take a student
directly to the quote in their own Gospel Library app. An example of such
a QR code is provided to the right. To use the code, simply open your
smartphone's camera (or QR code reader) and point it at the code. A
button will appear asking you to open the Gospel Library app, which will open directly to the
Elder Stevenson quote we have been discussing. Using approaches such as these, teachers can
dramatically decrease students' cognitive load demands and increase their ability to use
technology to learn the gospel effectively.
In addition to simplifying navigation, teachers can take several small steps to simplify
students’ experience with annotation. The following phrases are examples of ways to reduce the
demand on students' cognitive load by reminding them how to annotate digitally.
 "We're going to do a journal now; if you'd like to do it digitally, go ahead and select the
icon that looks like a piece of paper with the corner folded up."
 "If you want to tag that so that you can come back to it later, just select the button that
looks like the Best Buy logo and type in whatever word you think best describes the
verse."
 "If you want to link that verse to a conference talk, you can just push the button that looks
like a chain and link them together."
It is important to note that even when students have received training on how to annotate and
claim to know how to complete these tasks, the cognitive load demands will still be significant if
the student is required to recall these instructions each time they annotate. For this reason, it may
be wise for teachers to briefly explain how to annotate each time they invite students to do so.
When teachers adopt this practice, it allows students to preserve as much cognitive space as
possible for Gospel-centered thinking.
Practice #4 – Direct
To this point, the majority of suggestions for maximizing technology have dealt with how
to utilize smartphones' features. In contrast, offering direction focuses primarily on when to use
the various features. In many cases, despite being able to explain the technical aspects of how to
use features in the Gospel Library app, a student may need to be prompted as to when a certain
tool would be particularly effective.
While knowing when to annotate may appear to be a natural extension of knowing how
to annotate, digital reading's unique non-linear approach makes the application far more
challenging than it appears. In contrast to the traditional linear approach where a reader spends a
long amount of time on one article or book, digital reading uses an entirely different approach,
encouraging readers to browse and scan a variety of texts by jumping from link to link (Keim,
2014).
In theory, this approach has several benefits. Antonenko and Niederhauser (2010)
explained that:
Reading hypertext is a task of exploration. . . The unique characteristics of hypertext
allow hypertext authors to create connections to other related topics that are not easily
accomplished in traditional print text presentations. Hyperlinks form a more intricate web
of connected information nodes than is permitted by the straightforward flow of a print
text" (pg. 140).
Unfortunately, these outcomes are often difficult to realize. Instead, readers often compensate for
the overwhelmingly large amount of content available by bouncing from text to text, without
taking the time to process and analyze each piece of information (Carr, 2008; Jabr, 2013;
Nichols, 2018).
As this new style of surface-level reading becomes more and more typical, readers need
specific directions on how to reengage their minds in deeper level processing while reading. One
scholar concluded her study on the importance of assigning students to annotate their texts by
explaining that:
When readers slow down, they become more active. Readers allow themselves to become
more aware of their thinking process when they are active, and they consider and work to
make sense of ideas that they may not have been aware of even existed when they read
quickly. Many students found themselves reading to make meaning rather than reading to
complete the assignment (Porter-Odonnell, 2004: pg. 87).
Her students seemed to support her theory. One student explained that "it is so much harder to
fake read if you have to annotate like we have to do now. So now I actually read, because it's too
hard to fake annotate" (pg. 87). Another student explained the impact of annotating by saying, "I
have learned to not read very fast so I can comprehend the reading better. I used to read fast, and
it made me not understand what exactly I was reading. I discovered that even if annotating is an
annoyance, it can really help me in the end" (pg. 87).
Other studies lend themselves to the same conclusion. Lauterman and Ackerman (2014)
found that while digital reading typically resulted in lower comprehension than print reading,
when students completed a meaningful task while reading (identifying four keywords), there was
no significant difference between print and paper readers. More importantly, RockinsonSzapkiw, Holder, and Dunn (2011) found that when students received a specific assignment to
annotate digital texts as they read, they performed better than students who completed the same
assignment on paper and felt a deeper connection with the text. Durham and Raymond's (2016)
work also supports the importance of specific directions on annotation. Their study gave specific
directions to young students on how to annotate texts to identify main ideas. Results showed that
75% felt it helped them remember more of the text, 65% claimed it helped them enjoy reading
more, and 50% said it helped motivate them to read and understand more.
Given these findings, regardless of the medium students are using to access the scriptures,
instructors would be wise to give specific directions to students on how to slow down and
process the information in the text more carefully. The following is a list of phrases that teachers
might utilize to help direct students as they use their smartphones to complete reading
assignments in the classroom.
 "As you read through these verses, will you please highlight what you feel is the most
important word in each of the verses?"
 "As you read this passage, I need you to identify and tag the basic doctrine that you think
is best taught."
 "When you finish the reading, will you create a note next to your favorite verse that
summarizes what you feel is the main principle of the passage?"
 (after reading a quote) "As you read through these verses, will you find the verse that best
relates to the quote we just read and create a link to it?"
The phrases above, of course, are only examples. Regardless of what is said, the key is that
students receive specific directions on utilizing their devices effectively as often as possible.
Ideally, teachers should not give a reading assignment without providing specific directions on
how to understand the text more deeply.
Practice #5 - Honor Agency
Perhaps the most undervalued factor in utilizing smartphones is the role of the student's
agency. In 2013 Elder Paul V. Johnson cautioned against being overly prescriptive about one
format or another, teaching:
What if some teacher has left the impression that one cannot truly study and use the
scriptures if they are in an electronic form, and then when students become missionaries
and begin using a tablet for their scripture study and teaching? We wouldn't want them to
think they could only experience a lower level of scripture study because they are using
the electronic version.
There may also be teachers, in an attempt to utilize the technology they find
advantageous, that send the message to students or colleagues that unless they are
studying the scriptures in a digital format, they are not doing it correctly. As far as the
effect of the word on lives is concerned, one source for the scriptures is not inherently
better than another (Johnson, 2013).
Not surprisingly, several academic studies support Johnson's perspective. Stone and BakerEveleth (2013) found that social pressure from peers and instructors was a significant factor in
whether students choose to utilize an e-textbook or a printed version.
More importantly, research shows that when a student is required to utilize a format that
is not in line with their preferences, its usefulness is greatly diminished. For example, Lauterman
and Ackerman (2014) found that students overcame the traditional setbacks of digital reading
with training and practice but were quick to note that this was only the case when students
reported a preference for the digital format. The authors explained, "Using their non-preferred
medium seems to prevent participants from recruiting the mental effort required to achieve
cognitive and metacognitive processes as effective as those demonstrated by on-screen learners
preferring screen, and on paper, learners preferring paper" (pg. 481).
Similarly, several studies have shown that the utilization of smartphones in the classroom
can increase student engagement and desire for learning (Nichols, 2018; Odom, 2012,
Rockinsaw-Szapkiw, Holder, & Dunn, 2011). Other studies have found that readers who have
had a particularly meaningful experience with paper books in the past may struggle to have the
same connection with a digital version (Read, Robertson, & McQuilken, 2011; Waheed, Kaur, &
Sanni, 2015). Conversely, research shows that students with visual impairments and certain
reading disabilities can read quicker and with higher comprehension when reading from a
handheld device than from print (Schneps, Shomason, Chen, Sonnert, & Pomplun, 2013).
All of this research leads to a simple conclusion; some students will achieve better
outcomes utilizing smartphones as their reading device, while others will achieve better results
using a printed version. For this reason, teachers should direct students to utilize whatever format
gives them the best chance to succeed, rather than insisting that all students use a particular
format.
To help students properly utilize their agency, teachers may consider taking time to ask
students some of the following questions:
 "What do you think is the most important factor for you to consider when deciding which
format to use this year?"
 "Which of these formats do you think would give you the best chance to grow closer to
your Heavenly Father?"
 "How might it benefit you to utilize a different format than you are currently using to
study the scriptures?"
Once a teacher has assisted a student in deciding which format will work best for them, it may be
appropriate to express the expectation that each student utilize the format that will best help them
meet the Objective of seminary, whether it be print, digital, or some combination of the two.
Practice #6 - Discipline appropriately
Unfortunately, the drawback of allowing students to utilize their agency is that sometimes
they will misuse it. For better or worse, however, this trend is not unique to Seminaries and
Institutes. One study placed observers in the back of a college classroom to see how much time
students spent on task when asked to work on an assignment during class. The researcher found
that behavior started declining steeply after only two minutes. By fifteen minutes, students had
spent just 65% of their time on task (Paul, 2013). The same article reported that in one study,
"spies" were used to see how regularly students were off-task and found that 58% of students
were off task more than half the time (Paul, 2013).
Why are so many students spending so much time off-task? The reality may be that many
teens are full-on addicted to their devices. A 2016 Common Sense Media report found that 59%
of parents felt that their teens were addicted to their phones. Still, more alarmingly, 50% of teens
acknowledged that they were addicted. While the previously discussed steps of training,
modeling, simplifying, directing, and activating agency can go a long way towards helping
teenagers shift their perception about phone use, with 50% of students addicted to devices, it
should come as no surprise when distractions arise (Felt, & Robb, 2016).
There are, however, environmental circumstances that either enhance or diminish the
likelihood that students will be distracted in class. For example, Tindell and Bohlander (2012)
found that the top reasons students texted in the class were that
1.
2.
3.
4.
There was no clear policy, and the instructor didn't seem to mind.
The instructor stays in front of the class without circulating.
The instructor often has his back to the class,
The instructor doesn't require student participation.
While not mentioning smartphones specifically, the Gospel Teaching and Learning Handbook
offers remedies to each of these problems in the how-to "correct disorderly or inappropriate
behavior" section. The handbook suggests that teachers "Make eye contact. . . Stop talking. . .
Move closer. . . [and] Direct a question" (Gospel Teaching and Learning Handbook, 2.2.3).
Likewise, Bernstein (2019) gave a perspective that is challenging for many teachers to
accept:
The blame is usually placed on the shoulders of the listener, distracted in the smartphone
era by multiple screens and multitasking. . . But now communication experts say we need
to focus on what the talker is doing wrong, too. Often, they say, talkers engage in a
monologue rather than a dialogue. They drone on and ignore the listeners' cues that he or
she is disengaged. They sometimes accuse the listener of spacing out, causing hurt
feelings, or starting an argument.
In essence, if many of a teacher's students are distracted by their smartphones, the best way to
resolve the issue may have more to do with the teacher making changes than the student.
Regardless of why, when distractions arise and discipline is necessary, applying a few
fundamental principles will lead to a better outcome. The scriptures teach us that "if thy brother
shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone" (Matthew
18:15; D&C 42:88). Whenever possible, teachers should follow this counsel in correcting
students. Private corrections offer a far better setting for students to feel the sincere love and
concern of a teacher than correction that occurs in front of a group of the student's peers during
class.
Once a teacher is in the appropriate setting, teachers must remember that powerful corrections
only come:
…by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;
By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy,
and without guile—
Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then
showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest
he esteem thee to be his enemy (D&C 121:41-43)
Understanding this principle, a teacher will likely want to avoid phrases like "I need you to put
your phone away" or "You can't use your phone like that in this classroom." Instead, teachers
should utilize phrases that allow a student to decide what to do themselves, like:
 "I've noticed you've been spending more time than usual on your phone lately, is there
something that's changed recently?"
 "It seems like you've been a little distracted with your phone lately. Do you feel like
digital scriptures are still the best option to help you get closer to the Savior in class?"
 "It seems like you've been less focused in class lately, is there something I can do to help
you have a better experience?"
 "It doesn't seem like using your smartphone for scriptures is working. Do you think it
might help you focus more if you choose to use paper scriptures instead?"
It is important to remember that the principles of discipline only work when aligned with the
principles of agency. While a teacher insisting that a student use their phone a certain way may
temporarily solve the problem, a teacher cannot reasonably police every student's smartphone
usage during every class. Instead, as Elder David Evans of the Church's missionary department
taught, "We know that even with filters and every other safeguard that we can provide that the
only really effective filter for lifelong technology use is the individual heart and mind of the
individual young person" (Newsroom, July 2014). By helping our students learn to make
righteous decisions with smartphones, we can prepare them for success, not just in gospel
classrooms but in their daily lives.
Conclusion
While each of these practices helps youth learn to utilize technologies in righteous ways,
teachers should remember that even if they are applied correctly, there will still be struggles
when implementing smartphones in a seminary classroom. Speaking to that concern at a mission
presidents seminar, Elder David A Bednar taught, "We should not allow a fear of mistakes to
hold us back from receiving the great blessings these tools can provide" (Olson, 2018; Weaver,
2016). Mistakes have, and will continue to be made as we strive to meet church leaders' call to
utilize smartphones in the way the Lord desires. However, we can move forward with confidence
as we implement the proven practices of:
1. Proper training.
2. Effective modeling.
3. Simplification.
4. Directing students on when and how to use devices.
5. Honoring the agency of students.
6. And administering appropriate discipline.
In time, our efforts will contribute to changing paradigms about smartphones in the classroom
and accelerating the Lord's work in the last days.
References
Antonenko, P. D., & Niederhauser, D. S. (2010). The influence of leads on cognitive load and
learning in a hypertext environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(2), 140-150.
Apple Newsroom, (2010). Apple Launches iPad, retrieved from:
https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2010/01/27Apple-Launches-iPad/
Azevedo, R., & Cromley, J. G. (2004). Does training on self-regulated learning facilitate
students' learning with hypermedia?. Journal of educational psychology, 96(3), 523.
Baron, N. S. (2017). Reading in a digital age. Phi Delta Kappan, 99(2), 15-20.
Bennett, S., Maton, K., & Kervin, L. (2008). The 'digital natives' debate: A critical review of the
evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 775-786.
Ben-Yehudah, G., & Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2014, February). The influence of text annotation tools
on print and digital reading comprehension. In Proceedings of the 9th Chais Conference
for Innovation in Learning Technologies (p. 28-35).
Bernstein, E. (2019, Feb 26). Life & arts -- bonds: On relationships: No-one listening? maybe it's
you. --- listeners often get blamed for being distracted, but talkers should take
responsibility, too. Wall Street Journal
Blackwell, L., Gardiner, E., & Schoenebeck, S. (2016, February). Managing expectations:
Technology tensions among parents and teens. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM
Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (pp. 13901401). ACM.
Bold, M. R., & Wagstaff, K. L. (2017). Marginalia in the digital age: Are digital reading devices
meeting the needs of today's readers? Library & Information Science Research, 39(1),
16-22.
Bowman, L. L., Levine, L. E., Waite, B. M., & Gendron, M. (2010). Can students really
multitask? An experimental study of instant messaging while reading. Computers &
Education, 54(4), 927-931.
Carr, N. (2008). Is Google making us stupid?. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of
Education, 107(2), 89-94.
Chen, G., Cheng, W., Chang, T. W., Zheng, X., & Huang, R. (2014). A comparison of reading
comprehension across paper, computer screens, and tablets: Does tablet familiarity
matter?. Journal of Computers in Education, 1(2-3), 213-225.
Comstock, B. J. (2017). The Impact of Modeling on Students Perceptions of Electronics in the
Classroom. Unpublished.
Dobler, E. (2015). e‐Textbooks. Journal of Adolescent & adult literacy, 58(6), 482-491.
Dowd, H., & Green, P. (2016). Classroom management in the digital age: Effective practices for
technology-rich learning spaces. Irvine, CA: EdTechTeam Press.
Dunning, D., Johnson, K., Ehrlinger, J., & Kruger, J. (2003). Why people fail to recognize their
own incompetence. Current directions in psychological science, 12(3), 83-87.
Durham, P., & Raymond, R. D. (2016). Building Cognitive Reading Fluency through" Tagging"
for Metacognition. Texas Journal of Literacy Education, 4(1), 46-56.
End, C. M., Worthman, S., Mathews, M. B., & Wetterau, K. (2010). Costly cell phones: The
impact of cell phone rings on academic performance. Teaching of Psychology, 37(1), 5557.
Felt, L., & Robb, M. (2016). Technology addiction: Concern, controversy, and finding
balance. San Francisco, CA: Common Sense Media.
Froese, A. D., Carpenter, C. N., Inman, D. A., Schooley, J. R., Barnes, R. B., Brecht, P. W., &
Chacon, J. D. (2012). Effects of classroom cell phone use on expected and actual
learning. College Student Journal, 46(2), 323-333.
Jabr, F. (2013). Why the brain prefers paper. Scientific American, 309(5), 48-53.
Johnson, P. V. (2013, Aug). What More Might the Lord Be Willing to Give Us?, Seminaries and
Institutes of Religion Summer Broadcast.
Johnson, T. E., Archibald, T. N., & Tenenbaum, G. (2010). Individual and team annotation
effects on students' reading comprehension, critical thinking, and meta-cognitive skills.
Computers in human behavior, 26(6), 1496-1507.
Kang, Y. Y., Wang, M. J. J., & Lin, R. (2009). Usability evaluation of e-books. Displays, 30(2),
49-52.
Keim, B. (2014). Why the smart reading device of the future may be… paper. Wired (May
2014).
Kurata, K., Ishita, E., Miyata, Y., & Minami, Y. (2017). Print or digital? Reading behavior and
preferences in Japan. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology,
68(4), 884-894.
Lauterman, T., & Ackerman, R. (2014). Overcoming screen inferiority in learning and
calibration. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 455-463.
Lin, W. Y., Zhang, X., Jung, J. Y., & Kim, Y. C. (2013). From the wired to wireless generation?
Investigating teens' Internet use through the mobile phone. Telecommunications Policy,
37(8), 651-661.
MacWilliam, A. (2013). The engaged reader. Publishing Research Quarterly, 29(1), 1-11.
Mangen, A., Walgermo, B. R., & Brønnick, K. (2013). Reading linear texts on paper versus
computer screen: Effects on reading comprehension. International Journal of
Educational Research, 58, 61-68.
Mizrachi, D. (2015). Undergraduates' academic reading format preferences and behaviors. The
Journal of Academic Librarianship, 41(3), 301-311.
Newsroom (2014, July). Church Expands Use of Digital Devices for Missionary Work.
Retrieved from: https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/church-expands-use-ofdigital-devices-for-missionary-work
Nichols, M. (2016). Reading and studying on the screen: An overview of literature towards good
learning design practice. Journal of Open, Flexible, and Distance Learning, 20(1), 33-43
Nichols, M. (2018). Addendum: Reading and studying on the screen. Journal of Open, Flexible,
and Distance Learning, 22(2), 49-60.
Niederhauser, D. S., Reynolds, R. E., Salmen, D. J., & Skolmoski, P. (2000). The influence of
cognitive load on learning from hypertext. Journal of educational computing research,
23(3), 237-255.
Noyes, J., & Garland, K. (2005). Students' attitudes toward books and computers. Computers in
Human Behavior, 21(2), 233-241.
Odom, J. D. (2012). A study of the impact of mobile phones as learning tools for youth in
southern baptist churches (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations
& Theses Global. (1286700120). Retrieved from
http://libproxy.boisestate.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.libproxy.boisestate.ed
u/docview/1286700120?accountid=9649
Olson, A. C. (2018, August). Worshiping in a Digital Age, Ensign.
Paul, A. M. (2013). You'll never learn. Students can't resist multitasking, and it's impairing their
memory.
Packer, B. K. (1993, August). The Great Plan of Happiness, Address given to religious educators
at a symposium on the Doctrine and Covenants and Church History, Brigham Young
University, 10 August 1993.
Porter-O'Donnell, C. (2004). Beyond the yellow highlighter: Teaching annotation skills to
improve reading comprehension. English Journal, 82-89.
Przybylski, A. K., & Weinstein, N. (2013). Can you connect with me now? How the presence of
mobile communication technology influences face-to-face conversation quality. Journal
of Social and Personal Relationships, 30(3), 237-246.
Read, W., Robertson, N., & McQuilken, L. (2011). A novel romance: The Technology
Acceptance Model with emotional attachment. Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ),
19(4), 223-229.
Rockinson-Szapkiw, A. J., Courduff, J., Carter, K., & Bennett, D. (2013). Electronic versus
traditional print textbooks: A comparison study on the influence of university students'
learning. Computers & Education, 63, 259-266.
Rosenwald, M. S. (2014). Serious reading takes a hit from online scanning and skimming,
researchers say. The Washington Post, 6.
Sanders, L. (2017). Digital Minds. Science News, 191(6), 18.
Scholastic, (2015), Kids & Family Reading Report
Schneps, M. H., Thomson, J. M., Chen, C., Sonnert, G., & Pomplun, M. (2013). E-readers are
more effective than paper for some with dyslexia. PloS one, 8(9), e75634.
Schugar, J. T., Schugar, H., & Penny, C. (2011). A Nook or a Book? Comparing College
Students' Reading Comprehension Levels, Critical Reading, and Study Skills.
International Journal of Technology in Teaching & Learning, 7(2).
Stevenson, G. E. (2017, November). Spiritual Eclipse. Ensign.
Stone, R. W., & Baker-Eveleth, L. J. (2013). Students' intentions to purchase electronic
textbooks. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 25(1), 27-47.
Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning
and instruction, 4(4), 295-312.
Taipale, S. (2015). Bodily dimensions of reading and writing practices on paper and digitally.
Telematics and Informatics, 32(4), 766-775.
Thomas, K. M., O'Bannon, B. W., & Bolton, N. (2013). Cell phones in the classroom: Teachers'
perspectives of inclusion, benefits, and barriers. Computers in the Schools, 30(4), 295308.
Thornton, B., Faires, A., Robbins, M., & Rollins, E. (2014). The mere presence of a cell phone
may be distracting. Social Psychology.
Tindell, D. R., & Bohlander, R. W. (2012). The use and abuse of cell phones and text messaging
in the classroom: A survey of college students. College Teaching, 60(1), 1-9.
Tossell, C. C., Kortum, P., Shepard, C., Rahmati, A., & Zhong, L. (2015). You can lead a horse
to water, but you cannot make him learn: Smartphone use in higher education. British
Journal of Educational Technology, 46(4), 713-724.
Two sides, (2015), Reading from Paper or Reading from Screens. What do Consumers Prefer?
Van Horne, S., Russell, J. E., & Schuh, K. L. (2016). The adoption of mark-up tools in an
interactive e-textbook reader. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64(3),
407-433
Waheed, M., Kaur, K., Ain, N., & Sanni, S. A. (2015). Emotional attachment and
multidimensional self-efficacy: extension of innovation diffusion theory in the context of
eBook reader. Behaviour & Information Technology, 34(12), 1147-1159.
Weaver, S. J. (2016, July). Elder Bednar Tells 2016 Mission Presidents Not to Fear Technology.
Church News. Retrieved from: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/church/news/elderbednar-tells-2016-mission-presidents-not-to-fear-technology?lang=eng