Cell Phones: the four stages of addiction – an update – a student responds
As a trained and formerly licensed therapist, I share with my students what I think are the four stages of cell phone addiction as evidenced by students’ behavior in the classroom or my observations at faculty/staff meetings or workshops.
Stage 1 — the cell phone is not visible, but readily available to access at any given second.
Stage 2 — the cell phone is visible — it can be seen at all times on the desk or in one’s lap.
Stage 3 — the cell phone is touched, fingered, or held with great reluctance to let go.
Stage 4 – the cell phone is activated at the risk of the instructor’s policy on cell phones in class; the student’s addiction is sometimes normalized when the student can use the cell phone to research topics relative to the class.
As of today, a student responded to the 4 stages of addiction via e-mail:
“I agree to a point with your cell phone addiction model; I agree almost completely that they do not belong in any educational institution. There are instances where there are exceptions, such as: monitoring sick children, being available to a babysitter, ect… but even then it (the cell phone) should be set to vibrate as to not disrupt the class and kept in your pocket.
One idea you need to take into consideration though about your model for addiction is that cell phones are not cell phones anymore, they have advanced to the point of being so much more. They are: instant social media outlets, radio D.J.’s, instant world news updates, cameras, movie theaters, video recorders, bank tellers and mortgage lenders. It has evolved to the point where a cell phone can now do anything your computer at home is able to accomplish. In that way I believe your model for addiction needs updating, a more modern revision of sorts. They have become such an integral part of our society as a whole that without them, an entire generation would have to learn how to play outside, go to the beach, and to entertain themselves.
Nevertheless, these devices that were made to connect us are, ultimately, disconnecting us from the real world and the people that are closest to us. They are a double edged sword that needs to be balanced carefully.”
Thank you for taking the time to read the 4 stages ( also see many more comments from teachers across the nation); I realize the multiplicity of their uses which I am not concerned about — definitely they are invaluable within reason; my focus is on the dynamic of the addiction and its potential negative consequences, and not on the functions of the phone’s capabilities.
There are times in class when I can call upon someone to research an idea, definition, or other piece of information for enhancement purposes of the learning process. At least I have stirred up the pot — healthy for critical thinking — time for a debate with the class! Yes, the key lies with the Greek philosophers — all things in moderation – balance — may technology not suck the life blood out of our human veins. Your analysis was an insightful, solid, and balanced analysis of critical thinking. Again, thank you for taking the time to respond. May I use your analysis as an example of solid critical thinking? Isn’t learning an adventure, and more importantly iron sharpens iron.
What is your cell phone policy?
The following is an informative reflection on cell phone use in class for your review:
As faculty, it seems we are very concerned about cell phones in the classroom. Articles about the problem are popping up everywhere in the pedagogical literature, and they often are the “most-read” and “most-commented” articles listed on various websites. Is student use of electronic devices that pressing of a pedagogical problem? I’ve been wondering if our focus on it isn’t becoming excessive.
No question, it’s a vexing problem. Research makes it abundantly clear that students can’t multitask, despite their beliefs to the contrary. Even a casual observation of them texting in class while they’re supposed to be listening and taking notes makes it clear that it’s the listening and note-taking that are getting short shrift. The question is, to what extent is this a problem for teachers and students?
Does the use of the devices make it harder for other students to focus on learning tasks? More than 60% of a diversified student cohort said it does, according to a recent survey. However, 80% of that cohort reported using their cell phones at least once a period, with 75% saying that doing so was either acceptable or sometimes acceptable. So apparently from the student perspective, we’re not talking about a disruption they consider serious. Perhaps that’s because 92% of those in this survey didn’t believe that using their phones had negative effects.
Does the use of devices disrupt the teacher? It can. We also care that students aren’t engaging with the material when they’re on their phones, and we have leadership responsibility for the classroom environment. Both of those are justified concerns, but does some of our agitation grow out of personal offense? Students aren’t listening to us, and that’s rude. Should we be taking this personally? People everywhere are paying more attention to their devices than to those around them.
I also wonder if it isn’t getting under our skin because most of our policies really aren’t working all that well. Students in the survey didn’t rate a university policy, a syllabus policy, a glare from the teacher, and a public reprimand as all that effective. Forty percent of the students said they would still text in class even after a teacher reprimand. What did stop them from texting, they said, was a confrontational action—the teacher took their device, lowered their grade, or removed them from the classroom. Researchers didn’t ask what those confrontations did to/for the learning environment and the ongoing teacher-student relationships within that class.
Edited by respected scholar Maryellen Weimer, The Teaching Professordelivers the best strategies supported by the latest research for effective teaching in the college classroom. If you enjoy reading The Teaching Professor Blog here on Faculty Focus, the newsletter has even more of what you’re looking for. Start your subscription >>
Are we failing to see that in some ways this isn’t about the devices, but rather about power? When there’s a policy against using phones in class and students use them anyway, that says something about how powerful we are, or in this case, aren’t. It feels like we should be doing something, but we’re justifiably reluctant to make the big power moves that fix the problem when there’s such a high risk of collateral damage.
Some faculty report success with redirecting use of these devices—the “if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em” solution. Students are encouraged to search for material, look things up, or use their phones as clickers. Okay, that works, but you can’t have students constantly looking things up throughout an entire class. Even when given the opportunity, is everybody searching for what you’ve asked them to find?
And is the smell of hypocrisy in the air? In conference sessions, professional development workshops, faculty meetings, and academic gatherings of various sorts, faculty are on their devices. Of course, it isn’t just faculty using devices at all sorts of questionable times. Everybody is.
Lots of points, but here’s the bottom line: I think we can make the use of electronic devices more important than it merits. Yes, it compromises student learning and we have a responsibility to make sure students understand what they’re doing, but is it our job to prevent it? If we get too focused on the problem, then isn’t that taking away time we could be using to shape our content in interesting ways and to devise activities that so effectively engage students they forget to check devices? I know it’s a radical thought, but as one of my colleagues wondered, maybe the best policy here is no policy—but instead regular conversations about what learning requires.