University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Managing cyberloafing in the undergraduate business school's classroom

(USC Thesis Other)

Managing cyberloafing in the undergraduate business school's classroom

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Managing Cyberloafing in the Undergraduate Business School’s Classroom
by
Judy Adelizzi Parker

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education

December 2021

© Copyright by Judy Adelizzi Parker 2021
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Judy Adelizzi Parker certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Sourena Haj-Mohamadi
Helena Seli
Patricia Tobey, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2021

iv
Abstract
This dissertation is a qualitative study on how undergraduate business school professors can
manage the negative effects of undergraduate students’ cyberloafing behavior in the classroom.
According to Varol (2019), the term “cyber-loafing” means Internet use for non-work
related purposes (Taneja & Fischer, 2015). There are numerous empirical studies demonstrating
that over the years, students using these digital devices for off-task purposes have impacted their
learning. In addition, there are concerns with classroom incivilities as studies have shown that
cyberloafing behavior is distracting to their peers, specifically to those with disabilities, as well
as discourteous to professors. Furthermore, with the current pandemic and college students
learning remotely rather than in a “live” classroom environment, the problem brings costly
consequences to both the faculty and learner. Social cognitive theory was applied, focusing on
the reciprocal interactions between people, environment, and behavior (Bandura, 2000).
The study interviews eight professors from a business school or in communications at a private
university. As a part of the instrumentation, there is document analysis that supports the
methodology. The findings show that based on the professors’ perceptions, standardized
classroom policies, help manage the cyberloafing behavior in the classroom. The study
concludes with specific strategies for faculty to help manage the cyberloafing behavior in order
to maintain or enhance the college classroom learning experience.
Keywords: cyberloafing, digital distraction, classroom management, self-regulation,
undergraduate business school

v
Dedication
To my loving husband Sean David Parker and our daughters Sara and Catherine, who supported
me every step of the way.

In memory of our beloved Nellora Walker,
who believed in me.

vi
Acknowledgements
I appreciate so much the incredible support I received throughout this process!
Dr. Patricia Tobey, thank you for being my mentor, listener and sounding board. You
supported me throughout the process, to every last edit.
Dr.Helena Seli, thank you for your thoughtful feedback, attention to detail meant the
world to me, and helping me understand social cognitive theory at a new level.
Sourena Haj-Mohamadi, thank you for your support and your guidance. I enjoyed your
courses and learning from you.
Dr. Guadalupe Montano, thank you for your additional support throughout the latter part
of this journey, every step of the way.
Dr. Susanne M. Foulk, thank you for my first and last memorable courses at USC; you
helped put my problem statement into shape.
Dr. Don Murphy, I appreciate your edits, advice and feedback.
The Adelizzi, Parker, Brendsel families and friends both near and far: the legacy started
with our grandfather James B. Lane who received his masters in education at USC Rossier, and
then my mother Tommi Lane Adelizzi, a BS in mathematics at USC Rossier.
To my Dad, Bob Adelizzi, who has always believed that “can’t” is not in our family
vocabulary and that we should never stop learning.

vii
Table of Contents
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ........................................................................................................................................ v
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................... x
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. xi
Chapter One: Introduction to the Study ........................................................................................... 1
West Coast University Undergraduate Business School’s Context and Mission ................ 2
Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................... 2
Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................................ 3
Description of Stakeholder Groups ..................................................................................... 3
Stakeholder Group for the Study ......................................................................................... 4
Theoretical Framework ....................................................................................................... 5
Research Questions ............................................................................................................. 6
Significance of the Study ..................................................................................................... 7
Definition of Key Terms ..................................................................................................... 8
Organization of the Study .................................................................................................... 9
Chapter Two: Review of Literature ............................................................................................... 10
Advantages of Technology in the Classroom .................................................................... 10
Disadvantages of Technology in the Classroom ............................................................... 11
Students’ Beliefs on use of PEDs in the Classroom .......................................................... 11
The Negative Impact of Task Switching on Academic Performance ............................... 12
Cultural Trend “Cyberloafing” Prevalent in 21
st
Century College Classroom ................. 14
Classroom Incivility and Management .............................................................................. 15
The Role of Faculty ........................................................................................................... 16

viii
The Undergraduate Business School ................................................................................. 18
Theoretical Framework ..................................................................................................... 18
Social Cognitive Theory: Faculty (Personal) ................................................................... 21
Stakeholder Influence and Goal ........................................................................................ 22
Social Cognitive Theory: Faculty (Behavior) ................................................................... 23
Social Cognitive Theory: Environment (Students, Peers, Classroom) .............................. 25
Summary ............................................................................................................................ 30
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 31
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 31
Population and Sample ...................................................................................................... 32
Instrumentation .................................................................................................................. 33
Data Collection .................................................................................................................. 34
Data Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 35
Ethics ................................................................................................................................. 35
Positionality ....................................................................................................................... 36
Limitations and Delimitations ........................................................................................... 37
Chapter Four: Findings .................................................................................................................. 39
Participating Stakeholders ................................................................................................. 39
Findings ............................................................................................................................. 42
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 43
Research Question 1 .......................................................................................................... 43
Research Question 2 .......................................................................................................... 53
Research Question 3 .......................................................................................................... 57
Summary of Findings ........................................................................................................ 65

ix
Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations ......................................................................... 68
Recommendations for Practice .......................................................................................... 68
Discussion of Findings ...................................................................................................... 68
Recommendations for Future Research ............................................................................. 78
Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 79
References ..................................................................................................................................... 80
Appendix A: Interview Protocol ................................................................................................... 89
Appendix B: Theoretical Framework Alignment Matrix (Qualitative) ......................................... 91
Appendix C: Interview Questions ................................................................................................. 92
Appendix D: Word Cloud ............................................................................................................. 95
Appendix E: Information Sheet for Exempt Research .................................................................. 96

x
List of Tables
Table 1: Organizational Mission, Performance Goal, and Stakeholders’ Performance Goals 4
Table 2: Justification of Influences for Assessment Purposes 22
Table 3: Justification of Influences for Assessment Purposes 24
Table 4: Justification of Influences for Assessment Purposes 29
Table 5: Participants’ Demographics 41
Table 6: Professors for Qualitative Inquiry 42
Table 7: Professors’ Responses: Standardized PED policy for Qualitative Inquiry 52
Table 8: Professors’ Highlighted Responses on Female Faculty 67
Table 9: Indicators 78

xi
List of Figures
Figure 1: Model of Triadic Reciprocity 20
Figure 2: Adaptation of SCT Model of Triadic Reciprocity Cyberloafing 21
Figure 3: Logic Model Development Program Planning 75

1

Chapter One: Introduction to the Study
Undergraduate college students’ use of personal electronic devices (PEDs) for off-task
purposes in the classroom poses significant consequences to their learning. Students’ off-task
behavior on their devices led to a decrease in their academic performance, specifically in test
scores, despite believing that they could task-switch (Stephens & Pantoja, 2016). Flanigan and
Kiewra (2018) indicated that the next generation would “cyberslack,” or use electronic devices
for non-academic activities in the classroom. Based on U.S. research, on average, 70% to 80% of
cyberloafing college students frequently text in class (Flanigan & Kiewra, 2018). Up to 60% of
those who used PEDs for non-class-related activities had lower test scores and GPAs (Flanigan
& Kiewra, 2018). In addition, the use of PEDs obstructs the learning process and, as a result,
inhibits academic performance (Aaron & Lipton, 2018). Furthermore, studies revealed that
laptops in the business school do not improve learning and can distract both students and peers
(Dykstra et al., 2013). According to Stephens and Pantoja (2016), students believed the use of
PEDs was distracting, and 73% of college students admitted that texting in class was
unprofessional and discourteous. It is a distraction to both users and those near the students using
a PED (Dykstra et al., 2013). Students with technological advantages over others, whether they
have the technological skills or better technology, create inconsistent learning patterns and
inequities in the classroom (Junco & Cotton, 2012). Overall, students who do not have a
background in technology are at a disadvantage.
As a secondary issue, according to Knepp (2012), classroom incivility has become
prevalent in higher education, which includes the use of PEDs, even when there are classroom
policies in place. Furthermore, female instructors experience more classroom incivility than male
instructors (Alberts et al., 2010; Knepp, 2012). Female instructors, specifically women of color,
2

face issues with classroom incivility more than male instructors (Knepp, 2012). Additionally,
female college students are less likely to engage in uncivil classroom behavior (Knepp, 2012).
Above all, classroom incivility has increased over the years, and the use of electronic devices is a
factor (Knepp, 2012).
West Coast University Undergraduate Business School’s Context and Mission
A mission statement for the undergraduate business school of West Coast University, a
pseudonym, is as follows: We develop business leaders that strive to make the world a better
place. An undergraduate business school’s mission statement supports a pedagogy that focuses
on discussion-based, student-centered learning, incorporating both a learning and research
environment.
Statement of the Problem
Based on the background of the problem and the undergraduate business school’s
mission, there is significant evidence that cyberloafing behaviors in the college classroom are a
problem for the students and their peers who practice these behaviors. The problem of practice
addressed is the negative effects of cyberloafing behavior, the potential loss of productivity and
learning in the undergraduate business school classroom, and how it significantly impacts
students’ learning experiences. Off-task behavior using PEDs is evident in the college classroom,
and it affects students’ academic performance. Students and peers also believe this is a problem,
as they view it as a distraction that can hinder their learning (Dykstra et al., 2013). In addition,
students using PEDs for off-task purposes inhibit other students’ ability to learn. Above all, the
increase in the use of the terms “cyberloafing” and “cyberslacking” in academic journals exhibits
the prevalence in college classrooms of negative consequences for the learner and society.

3

Purpose of the Study
Considering the prevalence of PEDs in the classroom, the purpose of this study was to
understand, through the lens of professors, how cyberloafing impacts undergraduate business
school students’ learning behavior in the classroom and professors’ practices related to managing
the cyberloafing behavior. By better understanding students’ learning behavior, professors can
manage, improve, and provide an optimal learning environment in undergraduate business
classrooms where PEDs are prevalent. The study considered the different types of learners, such
as students with learning disabilities. Furthermore, the study explored how to manage the
cyberloafing behavior based on types of professors: tenured, tenure track, clinical, part-time or
adjunct, male, and female. With the 2020 global pandemic, faculty are in a continuous state of
imbalance, seeking solutions to managing the negative effects of PEDs in the undergraduate
business school classroom. The study sought a better understanding of these effects, how and
why these effects occur, and what professors can do about managing these effects in the
undergraduate classroom.
Description of Stakeholder Groups
Three key stakeholders can impact the success of the organization. First are the students
who are using PED in the classroom. Second are the professors who teach undergraduate
business courses like marketing, management, economics, finance, and accounting at multiple
levels. In addition, there are multiple types of professors: tenured, tenure-track, full-time, and
part-time or adjunct. The third stakeholder group includes the dean, assistant, academic dean,
and chairpersons, and academic advisors. The last two groups are the professors who interact
with the students and the administrators who interact with the professors in the school of
business.
4

Table 1
Organizational Mission, Performance Goal, and Stakeholders’ Performance Goals
Organizational mission
A mission statement in the undergraduate business school is as follows: We develop business
leaders that strive to make the world a better place. An undergraduate business school’s
mission statement supports a pedagogy that focuses on discussion-based, student-centered
learning, incorporating both a learning and research environment.
Organizational performance goal
By the end of 2024, faculty will effectively manage student use of PEDs in the classroom.
Stakeholder groups’ performance goals
By the end of year 2023, administrators will have effectively implemented processes in
efficiently managing the cyberloafing activity within the classroom environment while
helping students achieve their course learning objectives.
By the end of year 2023, the majority of business school students will learn how to manage
cyberloafing behavior while achieving their course learning objectives.
By the end of year 2024, the majority of business professors efficiently manage the cyberloafing
activity within the classroom environment while helping students achieve their course
learning objectives.

Stakeholder Group for the Study
The primary stakeholder group for this study consisted of business and communications
faculty. With professors’ and students’ roles being both directors and providers (dual roles),
determining who is accountable for what and by whom can be challenging (Burke, 2004).
Inconsistency in classroom policies leads to misunderstandings, confusion in students’
understanding of classroom expectations and impacts learning. The professors set the classroom
policies and design the lesson plans, which can include positive use of PEDs. The professors
standardize their policies, which can be potentially an administrative issue. Therefore, professors
are the primary stakeholder group.

5

Theoretical Framework
Social cognitive theory (SCT) was utilized to address this problem of practice. Social
cognitive theory focuses on the reciprocal interactions among people, environment, and behavior
(Bandura, 2000). The theory describes that the person is the faculty’s observation of the student,
the environment is made up of the student, cyberloafing culture, classroom, and society; and
behavior is the faculty’s activities managing the cyberloafing such as instruction, classroom
management, policies and processes. Applying the triadic reciprocity model reveals the people
or groups who may or may not bring behavioral change (Bandura, 2000). Above all, social
cognitive theory can help explore and understand this problem of practice. Social cognitive
theory was appropriate for examining the problem of practice because it explores the
organization’s internal stakeholders impacted by the problem.
The reciprocal interactions among people, environment, and behavior help determine the
key stakeholders and understand the people or groups influencing the behavior. In addition,
identifying these factors provided a better understanding of the problem. Examining the
environmental factors helped understand which factors are either part of the “environment” or
“people” and which are controllable versus uncontrollable. These stakeholders who are a part of
the environment such as students and administrators, can directly impact the problem. In
addition, the environment involves forces such as social, cultural, technology, and society. This
theory is also appropriate to examine this problem because observational learning and modeling
of behaviors can potentially help solve the problem of cyberloafing in the classroom.
The emerging key concepts based on Bandura’s triadic reciprocity model helped explore
students’ cyberloafing in the college classroom. The “person” is the faculty, their sense of self-
efficacy, and through their observations, how they help students self-regulate or impact their
6

cognitive load (Ambrose et al., 2010; Bandura, 2005). The student’s college student’s intrinsic
and extrinsic behavior can lead to a behavioral response of cyberloafing (Akbulut et al., 2016).
The “behavior” is the faculty’s activities, specifically the instructional techniques, the policies,
and processes, which can impact both the student, the cyberloafing behavior or student who is
using PEDs for off-task purposes. The environment includes cultural, social norms and
influences on others (Bandura, 2005). Those influences are students and their classmates, and the
administration.
Research Questions
The following questions aligned with the theory to help examine the problem of practice
in the undergraduate business school classroom:
1. How does the faculty address and manage students’ cyberloafing behavior in the
undergraduate business school classroom?
2. What is the faculty’s understanding about students’ motivation to cyberloaf in the college
classroom?
3. How do faculty incorporate techniques to help self-regulate the cyberloafing behavior?
The research design was qualitative, utilizing an exploratory and descriptive approach.
This research design was aligned with the purpose of understanding how cyberloafing affects
undergraduate business school students’ learning behavior in the classroom through the faculty’s
lens. By better understanding the students’ learning behavior, professors can manage, improve,
and provide an optimal learning environment where PEDs are prevalent. The research design
was framed by seeking a better understanding of how faculty can address, manage, and explore
cyberloafing behaviors in the traditional classroom of a small- to medium-sized private
university.
7

Significance of the Study
The study was based on exploring the negative effects of using PEDs in the
undergraduate classroom through the faculty lens. There are numerous studies on the impact of
students’ off-task technology on their learning. However, there is little research on managing or
mitigating cyberloafing in the college classroom. Through qualitative research and the triadic
reciprocity model, the study sought to provide a deeper understanding that can serve as a
guideline for faculty in the business school.
Based on Tuck and Yang (2012), “the theory of change is a situation that can be adjusted,
corrected, or improved” (p. 10). Thus, the study focused on how professors can manage or
mitigate a learning environment where cyberloafing is prevalent. Regarding the relationship
between individual and structural forces, students are in a classroom environment designed for
lecture-based instruction. The professor is up front speaking to the students while they are sitting
at desks facing the instructor. They are expected to sit, listen, answer questions, and/or have
discussions. The college classroom has not changed much since medieval times, with the
exception of the number of students in them (Park & Choi, 2014). This traditional setting creates
a force of minimal interaction between the professor and the student. With the 2020 global
pandemic and remote learning taken into consideration, the study also explored how to improve
the quality of the learning environment for all types of learners in the undergraduate business
school. According to Kirscher and van Merrienboer (2013), western society has taught today’s
students, referred to as digital natives, to question authority, think independently, and self-
regulate. The study can help faculty understand how to adjust, correct or improve a learning
environment where electronic devices are heavily utilized. The study can also help improve the
quality of the learning environment for all types of learners.
8

Not solving this problem may inhibit college students’ ability to be effective life-long
learners, think critically, and solve complex problems as future professionals and leaders of
society. Learning impairment due to cyberloafing behavior in the classroom leads to similar
behavior beyond graduation and into the workforce (Al Abbasi, 2018). Corgnet et al. (2015)
suggested that cyberloafing behavior in the workplace leads to poor productivity and a loss
of millions of dollars for corporations.
This problem is important to address and solve because the negative academic outcomes,
the loss of learning and productivity, can substantially hinder college students’ success. Students’
inability to task switch and multitask in the classroom using PEDs raises concerns about the
societal impact on the educational community and on becoming effective working professionals
and social leaders. According to Schwieger and Ludwig (2018), NACE (National Association of
Colleges and Employers), reported one of the top skills employers look for are teamwork (78%),
and communication skills (75.2 % for written and % for written and 70.5% for verbal). NACE
reported in 2021 that employers still are seeking teamwork in a candidate and has increased by
2% (from 78% to 80%).
Definition of Key Terms
The key terms are the following:
● Classroom incivility: According to Knepp (2012), college classroom incivility is defined
as “behaviors that distract the instructor or other students, disrupt classroom learning,
discourage the instructor from teaching, discourage other students from participating,
[and] derail the instructor’s goals” (p. 33).
● Cyberloafing: According to Varol (2019), the term “cyberloafing” means Internet use for
non-work-related purposes.
9

● Cyberslacking: The term “cyberslacking” has a similar meaning as cyberloafing (Taneja
et al., 2015).
● Digital distraction: Internet use for non-work-related purposes is referred to as a digital
distraction (Aaron & Lipton, 2018; Taneja et al., 2015).
● Digital natives/Gen Z: the new generation of learners who were born with technology,
have learned from new media and are perceived as self-educators (Kirscher & van
Merrienboer, 2013).
● FOMO: Fear of missing out (Berdik, 2018; McCoy, 2013).
● Multitasking: Multitasking is managing two or more tasks or jobs at the same time,
requiring processing of information in order to accomplish these tasks (Kirscher & van
Merrienboer, 2013).
● PED: According to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA, 2017), PED stands for
Portable Electronic Device. PEDs include handheld, lightweight electronic devices such
as tablets, e-readers, and smartphones.
● Task switching: Task switching is working on one task or activity and then moving onto
another task or activity (Kirscher & van Merrienboer, 2013).
Organization of the Study
This dissertation is organized into five chapters. Chapter One includes the background,
purpose, and statement of the problem. In addition, it presents the study’s key concepts and
terminology. Chapter Two provides the literature review that shapes the methodology, findings,
and recommendations. Chapter Three provides the methodology, sampling, data collection, and
analysis. Chapter Four provides the findings of the evaluation study. Chapter Five provides the
discussion, recommendation, and suggestions for further study.
10

Chapter Two: Review of Literature
This review covers literature, starting with the advantages and disadvantages of
technology in the classroom. Next, three topic areas emerged from the review of the research that
centers on the college classroom. These topic areas are based on social cognitive theory, the
three factors of the triadic reciprocity model, and the environment (Bandura, 2000). The personal
aspect of the model, in this study, is the faculty’s belief that using PEDs both hinders and
enhances learning. Next, with behavioral factors, students’ multitasking behavior of using PEDs
impacts their learning. Third, as a part of the environment, cyberloafing or cyberslacking has
become a cultural phenomenon established in the 21st-century college classroom. What also falls
under the environment is classroom incivility and management. With the prevalence of both
asynchronous and synchronous learning, students will succeed with the following top skills
employers are looking for: teamwork, problem solving, work ethic, and both verbal and written
communications skills (Schwieger & Ludwig, 2018).
Advantages of Technology in the Classroom
There are many benefits to allowing technology in the classroom, such as engaging in
learning apps like online photo sharing (Seemiller, 2017). Technology can support the learning
environment by allowing students to seek content that contributes to their learning (Seemiller,
2017). In addition, visual skills have improved, allowing students to process information due to
technology (Wolpert, 2009). Using electronic devices can be advantageous to students working
on related classwork (McCoy 2013). Although McCoy (2013) indicated that 49% of students in
their study used their devices for reasons related to classwork, it was unclear what those reasons
were and what classwork entailed.

11

Disadvantages of Technology in the Classroom
Although there are advantages, technology use in the classroom also has disadvantages.
With an increase in visual literacy or intelligence, print literacy, critical thinking, and analysis
have declined due to technology (Wolpert, 2009). According to Patricia Greenfield, UCLA
professor of psychology and director of the Children’s Digital Media Center, and her research on
multitasking with learning and technology, reading brings reflection, imagination, creativity, and
builds vocabulary (Wolpert, 2009). Reading for pleasure, which supports the imagination, has
declined in recent decades, whereas visual media such as TV and video games have not
(Wolpert, 2009). Professors seek to understand how much technology such as new media and
video games should be used in the classroom (Wolpert, 2009).
Students’ Beliefs on use of PEDs in the Classroom
Students do believe cyberloafing is habitual and still happens frequently (McCoy, 2020).
According to a survey of 982 students in U.S. colleges and universities during the 2018–2019
term, 87% of students admitted that it affects their ability to pay attention, and it costs on average
19% of students’ time (McCoy, 2020). College students’ beliefs and attitudes regarding PEDs
used for off-task purposes reflect they are a distraction and negatively impact learning. Students
perceive that laptops in the classrooms are usually a distraction and rarely think laptops will
increase their participation, engagement, and grade (Dykstra et al., 2013). Results from 401
student questionnaire responses showed that 17.8% regularly brought laptops to the classroom,
used them for nonacademic purposes inside the classroom, and believed requiring laptops in
class would be a distraction (Dykstra et al., 2013). In addition, these students believed that
requiring laptops is a distraction to peers (Dykstra et al., 2013). According to McCoy (2020),
38.8% of students believed that distracting others was a disadvantage.
12

Also, in a study by Stephens and Pantoja (2016), students believed PEDs were
distractions; 73% of participants admitted to texting in class and stated it was unprofessional and
discourteous. Highly intellectual students believed they could multitask using PEDs in the
classroom; however, studies show that is not the case. Stephens and Pantoja’s (2016) study
included 196 of 508 students in a psychology class, with ACT scores revealed, and considered
use of and beliefs regarding PEDs. Test scores for Exam 1 (mean 78%), Exam 2 (80% mean),
and Exam 3 (82% mean) indicated that performance remained relatively flat with internet use,
resulting in no evidence that students with high ACT scores have strong multi-tasking
capabilities (Stephens & Pantoja, 2016). This means that students with high ACT scores are not
necessarily effective in multitasking. Also, data suggest that using electronic devices have
greater negative effects than other types of multitasking behavior (Stephens & Pantoja, 2016). In
addition, using the internet for non-academic purposes led to lower test scores (Ravizza et al.,
2014). By reviewing college students’ beliefs, the use of PEDs in the classroom exhibits an
association between multitasking behaviors and a negative impact in learning.
The Negative Impact of Task Switching on Academic Performance
There are two types of task switching behaviors: concurrent multitasking and sequential
multitasking (Rosen et al., 2011). With concurrent multitasking, the student works on two tasks
at the same time, and with sequential multitasking, a student completes one task after another
(Rosen et al., 2011). Numerous studies revealed that students who multi-task, using the laptop
and cell phones unrelated to the lecture, have lower academic performance (Wammes et al.,
2019). There were two sets of studies. The first study had a sample of 173 college students aged
23 to 28. The second study had a sample of 76 collect students aged 23 to 26 (Wammes et al.,
2019). The conclusions based on these studies were lower test scores and decreased data
13

retention (Wammes et al., 2019). In addition, Sana et al. (2013) conducted two experiments in
the college classroom: 44 participants scored 11% lower on the comprehension test, and 39
participants who were in view of those who multitasked using their devices scored 17% lower on
the comprehension test. Above all, 43% did not follow the instructions; the “paper and pencil”
control group participants outperformed those who used their electronic devices (Sana et al.,
2013).
Furthermore, due to the surge in electronic devices in the classroom, Aaron and Lipton
(2018) examined the cognitive relationships between those who were multitasking by using their
electronic devices. Aaron and Lipton experimented with the relationship between students who
used electronic devices for multi-tasking purposes and those who did not use their devices at all
and concluded that 67% that used their devices only got one answer correct. Within the group
that had all correct answers, only 12% used their devices, whereas 88% did not (Aaron & Lipton,
2018). The study concluded that retention was impacted if students used their devices (Aaron &
Lipton, 2018). These studies concluded that students who are not engaged in off-task behavior
using electronic devices can retain information (Aaron & Lipton, 2018). According to Berdik
(2018), the ability to multitask is a myth; people are not programmed to focus on multiple tasks
effectively. Evidence suggests that the more students engage with PEDs, the less engaged they
are in learning, and the more students multitask or engage in task switching, the lower their
grades (Berdik, 2018).
Bellur et al. (2015) found that students who multitask using PEDs have lower college
GPAs and concluded they were “chronic media multitaskers” (p. 65). In Pew research, 64%
admitted to texting regularly in class, which was the most prevalent secondary task activity
(Bellur et al., 2015). As time passes, texting, emailing, and using social media may reduce
14

students’ ability to process information thoroughly (Junco & Cotten 2012). A web survey using a
large sample of college students (N = 1774) at one university indicated that using electronic
devices had increased with time and affected students’ GPA (Junco & Cotten 2012). According
to Gazzaley and Rosen (2016), students can be distracted or disengaged from the learning
process for 30 minutes after using their electronic devices. These multitasking behaviors through
PEDs show negative results in academic performance, resulting in a new phenomenon called
“cyberloafing” or “cyberslacking.”
Cultural Trend “Cyberloafing” Prevalent in 21
st
Century College Classroom
A recent cultural trend referred to as “cyberloafing” or “cyberslacking” in college
classrooms has permeated throughout the U.S. Per McCoy (2019), Generation Z is the largest
group attending college in the U.S. In a survey of 982 students from U.S. colleges and
universities, 95% have a smartphone, and 80% of the respondents admitted to cyberloafing in the
classroom (McCoy, 2020). The survey was conducted in 2019 and 2020, and the results did not
change (McCoy, 2020). Academic researchers who encountered this recent cultural trend say it is
negatively impacting learning in the college classroom. According to Varol (2019), the term
“cyberloafing” means internet use for non-work-related purposes, and “cyberslacking” has
similar meaning (Taneja et al., 2015). In other words, both entail using electronic devices for
non-academic-related activities in the classroom. In fact, there is a five-factor cyberloafing scale
to measure the levels of cyberloafing behavior during lectures (Akbulut et al., 2016). Current
findings on cyberloafing in the classroom demonstrated a negative impact due to using these
devices (Akgün, 2020). Negative academic achievement and motivation were revealed by using
the five-factor cyberloafing scale in a convergent parallel mixed-methods study of 819 high
15

school students from nine different schools and semi-structured interviews of 18 teachers
(Akgün, 2020).
As for cyberloafing, of 185 students surveyed through quality qualitative case study
methodology, 95% indicated that they check email and perform internet searches, 92% read the
news, and 45% used a combination of these behaviors regularly (Taneja et al., 2015). According
to Taneja et al. (2015), the following influence students: consumerism, escapism, lack of
attention, anxiety, and distractions due to cyberloafing. In all, a survey of 290 students resulted
in 52% variation in the intention to cyberloaf, 42.3% variation in lack of intention, and over 40%
escapism with both intrinsic and extrinsic motives (Taneja et al., 2015). Research by Flanigan
and Kiewra (2018) indicates that the next generation will cyberloaf. Based on U.S. research, 70%
to 80% of students frequently text in class, average 12 texts per class time, and up to 60% of
them are using PEDs for non-class-related activities, which is linked to lower test scores and
GPA (Flanigan & Kiewra, 2018).
Classroom Incivility and Management
Due to the cultural shift of more PEDs in the classroom, Seemiller (2017) suggested
students do not see the classroom as a different space from other environments, such as the store
or home. Students see these environments as ubiquitous and do not perceive themselves as
discourteous and not distracting to others (Seemiller, 2017). They are unaware that they serve as
a distraction and inhibit learning (Seemiller, 2017).
According to Knepp (2012), college classroom incivility is defined as “behaviors that
distract the instructor or other students, disrupt classroom learning, discourage the instructor
from teaching, discourage other students from participating, [and] derail the instructor’s goals”
(p. 34). College classroom incivility has increased over the years partly due to the increased
16

usage of PEDs (Knepp, 2012). Furthermore, female instructors experience more classroom
incivility than male instructors (Alberts et al., 2010; Knepp, 2012). According to Nordstrom et
al. (2016), male students are more likely to practice incivility in the classroom than female
students. Females of color, in particular, experience incivility in the college classroom (Knepp,
2012). According to Alberts et al.’s (2010) study, 31.2% of participants reported incivility and
occasional hostility against female professors versus 14.5% who reported such against male
professors. Studies show that hostility could provoke incivility from professors (Knepp, 2012).
Classroom incivility leads to the notion of microaggressions, which might occur between
students and female professors or female professors of color (Lilienfeld, 2017).
The literature identifies several recommendations for managing classroom civility. The
first is to focus on the preferred behaviors rather than the negative behaviors (Alberts et al.,
2010). For example, at the beginning of the course, the instructor can list what would be
appropriate or what is exemplary classroom behavior (Alberts et al., 2010). Next, they can
communicate expectations in classroom policies and include research to avoid potential adverse
behavior or resentment towards the policies (Alberts et al., 2010). Third, the classroom policy
should be aligned with the university policy and consider orientation sessions for both students
and faculty (Alberts et al., 2010). Finally, Alberts et al. (2010) asserted that subjective norms or
social pressures can work to the instructor’s advantage, such as in developing a classroom code
of conduct (Alberts et al., 2010). According to Morrissette (2001), faculty can learn
communication skills such as active listening and speaking with students rather than at students.
The Role of Faculty
Regarding the stakeholder group of focus, professors are seen as the “seller,” and the
student-professor relationship is a buyer-seller relationship. Bingham and Nix (2010) asserted
17

there is gender bias in that female faculty are treated differently than male faculty. Universities
experienced a shift in the market from internal organizational productivity to market demands for
quality programs. According to Burke (2004), inconsistencies in undergraduate classroom
policies lead to administrative challenges at market-driven universities. Undergraduate business
schools struggle to balance professional, public, and marketplace forces (Burke, 2004). With the
lack of processes in place, professors are held accountable when students do not follow the rules
(Burke, 2004).
According to Stecher and Kirby (2004), lack of training faculty is a professional
accountability issue. A university struggles to balance professional, public, and ever-changing
marketplace forces (Burke, 2004). With professors’ and students’ roles being both directors and
providers (having dual roles), determining who is accountable for what and by whom can be
challenging (Burke, 2004). Inconsistency in classroom policies leads to misunderstandings,
confusion regarding classroom expectations, and a negative impact on learning. From a market
orientation standpoint, customer service can be jeopardized and can result in losing students
(Burke, 2004). The consequences for the student are lack of learning, cost, and missed
opportunities to learn: a time, cost, and quality issue (Burke, 2004).
From a market accountability standpoint, customer service is a gap in the process and
may result in losing students (Burke, 2004). According to Marsh (2012), faculty need to assess
the gaps so that they can proactively seek intervention solutions. With only student evaluations
and no training, improvements, or interventions, the quality of instruction and the students’
educational experience fall short (Marsh, 2012). Regarding professional accountability, an
internal issue that focuses on the need for improvements in professionalism can be a gap when it
comes to standards of practice in education (Firestone & Shipps, 2005).
18

The Undergraduate Business School
To understand the undergraduate business school classroom, the following will define
and describe the undergraduate business school and the key stakeholders, the types of professors
that are a part of the classroom environment: tenured, tenured track, clinical, part-time or adjunct
faculty. Market Business News stated that the definition of a business school is an institution, or a
part of an institution, that teaches business administration or management courses and has
undergraduate and graduate programs. However, this study focused on the undergraduate
program. Based on a survey, 85% of businesses are looking to hire business school graduates
(GMAC, 2018).
Theoretical Framework
Social cognitive theory (SCT) was applied to address this problem of practice because it
is applicable to studying stakeholder performance in an undergraduate business school
environment. This SCT problem-solving model is based on understanding the stakeholder’s goal
of the professor managing cyberloafing behavior while meeting course learning objectives,
which is also the organization’s goal and identifying the factors of influence on students’
cyberloafing behavior by examining the faculty, behavior, and environment. The following
closely examines the faculty, behavior, and environment through the stakeholder lens and
literature.
Social cognitive theory focuses on the reciprocal interactions among people,
environment, and behavior (Bandura, 2000). Thus, it can help explore the contributors to this
problem of practice. Social cognitive theory is appropriate to examine the problem of practice
because it explores the organization’s internal stakeholders impacted by the problem. In addition
to person, environment, and behavior, the theory may or may not confirm the key concepts: (a)
19

the person (or personal) are the faculty, self-efficacy, beliefs, attitudes, and their impact on
learning; (b) the environment consists of students and their cyberloafing behavior, cyberloafing
culture, classroom environment, and peers that are involved in cyberloafing and both societal
support and barriers; and (c) the behavior is the faculty’s actions the faculty takes managing the
PEDs electronic devices as off-task behavior or becoming a digital distraction.
Applying the triadic reciprocity model reveals the people or groups who may or may not
bring behavioral change (Bandura, 2000). Regarding self-regulation, Bandura (1991) indicated
that people need to set realistic goals for themselves, continuously monitor themselves and be
aware of their performance. Otherwise, they will not see change. In addition, they will be
outperformed by those who set more challenging goals. (Bandura, 1991). Goal-setting theory,
which is based on SCT, maintains that personal, social, and contextual variables determine
personal goals and self-control (Locke & Latham, 2004). To explore faculty perceptions about
why college students cyberloaf in the classroom and how this behavior can be managed, Figure 1
presents Bandura’s (2000) SCT model of triadic reciprocity, served to examine the faculty and
their actions related to social cognitive theory (Figure 2).

20

Figure 1
Model of Triadic Reciprocity

Note. Adapted from Bandura, A. (2000). “Exercise of Human Agency Through Collective
Efficacy” by A. Bandura, 2000, Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 75–78.
(https://doi.org10.1111/1467-8721.00064)

21

Figure 2
Adaptation of SCT Model of Triadic Reciprocity Cyberloafing

Social Cognitive Theory: Faculty (Personal)
According to Bandura (1991), self-efficacy is the main focus of SCT as it impacts
behavior, the act of using PEDs in the classroom, classroom policies, atmosphere, and social
influence. Self-efficacy is a person’s belief in being capable of learning what is being taught or
completing a task (Bandura, 1991). Furthermore, people who self-regulate have high self-
efficacy, proactively plan, and set goals to complete specific action items (Bandura, 1991).
Faculty’s self-efficacy plays an important role in their ability to help students proactively plan,
set goals, and self-regulate. There is less texting activity among students who self-regulate than
among students who do not (Wei et al., 2012). Self-regulated students have a stronger ability to
maintain their attention (Wei et al., 2012), which influences learning.
22

Stakeholder Influence and Goal
With the faculty being accountable to students’ success, faculty’s self-efficacy and the
influence of self-regulation supports the stakeholder’s organizational goal to enhance the
classroom learning experience. As a result, the professor’s influence helps students achieve self-
efficacy, self-regulation and, as a result, manage their cyberloafing behavior. In addition,
students who receive help from professors on foresight and setting goals for themselves will be
motivated to stay on task and succeed.

Table 2
Justification of Influences for Assessment Purposes
Type of indicator Possible underlying influence How will it be assessed?
Self-regulation of student Self-efficacy
Classroom management
Professor interviews

23

Social Cognitive Theory: Faculty (Behavior)
As for professors, studies have found that faculty’s behavioral activities, instructional
methods and classroom management are a major influence on cyberloafing behavior as well
(Berry & Westfall, 2015). Cheong et al. (2016) indicated that classroom management is
challenging when students direct themselves to personal devices instead of the lecture, as
attention becomes divisive, preventing students from focusing on the lecture. In addition,
classroom incivility becomes an issue between the student and the professor. As a way to
prevent off-task work, fend off incivility and effectively manage the classroom, Dursun et al.
(2018) suggested incorporating more online activities as a part of instruction. In addition, high
self-control correlates with a high GPA (Tangney et al., 2004). According to Seemiller (2017),
there are two main issues: lack of courtesy and personal distraction. With the problem of digital
distraction, professors are challenged with seeking solutions to manage the classroom. There is
minimal research on how professors manage or communicate authority while meeting
pedagogical goals in the college classroom (Cheong et al., 2016; Seemiller, 2017). In regards to
classroom “no electronic devices” policies, students who were in classrooms with strict
classroom policies scored higher on tests (70%) than those with less restrictive policies (Aaron &
Lipton, 2018).
With motivational and learning strategies, students successfully self-regulate and, as a
result, effectively manage their cyberloafing behavior and become better, proactive learners (Seli
& Dembo, 2019). Active instruction or creating an active learning environment potentially
increases motivation (Flanigan & Kiewra, 2018). Lack of interactivity can contribute to the
motivational element since students are motivated when they are engaged in meaningful
interactive activities (Flanigan & Kiewra, 2018). Furthermore, Ambrose et al. (2010) asserted
24

that students’ lack of motivation can lead to incivilities such as using PEDs for non-work-related
purposes. Providing various instructional tools through positive reinforcement and social
modeling allows students to process information, apply what they have learned, and become self-
driven learners (Ambrose et al., 2010; Bandura, 2005). Above all, there are strategies to help
students learn to self-regulate, such as incorporating time management techniques (Ambrose et
al., 2010; Flanigan & Kiewra, 2018; Seli & Dembo, 2019).
Stakeholder Influence and Goal
The faculty’s perspective of the students cyberloafing behavior supports the need to
manage the cyberloafing behavior. By faculty managing the behavior, the organization can
attain its goal. Faculty’s influence on classroom policies, interactive instruction, social modeling,
positive reinforcement, and increasing students’ awareness of the cyberloafing behavior and the
need to manage such behavior support the stakeholder’s organizational goal of enhancing the
classroom learning experience.

Table 3
Justification of Influences for Assessment Purposes
Type of indicator Possible underlying influence How will it be assessed?
Student cyberloafing, off-
task, or task-switching
behavior using PEDs
Professor’s instruction,
classroom policies, social
modeling, interactive
activities, positive
reinforcement
Professor interviews

25

Social Cognitive Theory: Environment (Students, Peers, Classroom)
The environment examines students' cyberloafing behavior, classmates or peers, and
classroom. Students cyberloaf for multiple reasons: FOMO, boredom, stay connected, coping, or
habitual. Studies indicate that students use PEDs in the classroom for non-related classwork due
to fear of missing out (FOMO), fighting boredom, and staying connected. Berdik (2018) and
McCoy (2013) examined FOMO and students’ need to know what is happening as they are
constantly plugged in. In fact, according to a study, the primary reason 70% of students use
PEDs in the classroom is to stay connected (McCoy, 2013). Another consideration is that
cyberloafing is a coping mechanism in that it is a form of escapism, fighting boredom, and
controlling anxiety (Taneja et al., 2015). McCoy (2013) also found that 55% of students believe
that cyberloafing during class helped control boredom. Through a more recent survey, the author
found that 59% of students believe that cyberloafing helped them fight boredom (McCoy, 2020).
Ugar and Koc (2015) 218 noted that 60% of students in their study reported using their devices
out of boredom. Flanigan and Babchuk (2015) also found that fighting boredom was a major
determinant for students in using social media, specifically during class. As Seemiller (2017)
suggested, students use PEDs in the classroom for non-academic purposes to stay connected, as
they experience FOMO or want to fight boredom and seek entertainment. As a result, there is a
need for the professor to mitigate the cyberloafing behavior. According to Aagaard (2015),
cyberloafing is not always a conscious choice. Automated cycles are triggered by moments of
boredom that result in habitual cyberloafing behavior (Aagaard, 2015). Furthermore, McCoy
(2020) stated that the use of PEDs is habitual, that students admit that it affects their ability to
pay attention, and 59% of participants in that study recognized the need for more self-control
techniques.
26

Student’s Self-regulation and Motivation
In reference to students’ cyberloafing behavior, there are studies that identify what
students are doing in the classroom through the following theories: cognitive load theory, self-
constructivist, self determination, and theory of planned behavior. Cognitive load theory
identifies three types of load: intrinsic, germane, and extraneous (Wood et al., 2012). The first
two types of load are related to the learning task and activities that facilitate learning.
Multitasking increases the load, which negatively influences students’ learning experience.
Students who can self-regulate can control their cyberloafing behavior (Wurst et al., 2008).
Wurst et al. (2008) asserted that the self-constructivist would be able to self-regulate in the
classroom. Self-constructivists are motivated to stay on task and most likely have the ability to
control their cyberloafing behavior (Wurst et al., 2008). Wurst et al. (2008) also asserted that a
self-constructivist type of student who takes online classes is motivated to stay on task rather
than engage in cyberloafing activities. In terms of student motivation, Stephens and Pantoja
(2015) used self-determination to understand the relationship between motivation and use of
PEDs in the college classroom.
As students’ intrinsic motivation increases, students’ classroom engagement increases
(Stephens & Pantoja, 2016). As a result, students will be more productive or focused on learning
if there is intrinsic motivation rather than extrinsic motivation or motivation through external
forces (Stephens & Pantoja, 2016). Also, students may use PEDs for off-task purposes if there is
amotivation, such as boredom (Stephens & Pantoja, 2016). Taneja et al. (2015) examined
considerations about why students cyberloaf and behave the way they do, which involves
subjective norms, students’ social pressure to use digital devices. As for perceived behavioral
control, if students know they can easily cyberloaf, they do it (Taneja et al., 2015). Consistent
27

with theory of planned behavior are students’ attitudes towards cyberloafing in the classroom,
subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control (Taneja et al., 2015). In addition, Soh et al.
(2018) confirmed Taneja’s research regarding that one of the factors in theory of planned
behavior is subjective norms, as students tend to cyberloaf through subjective norms.
Furthermore, a larger factor than descriptive norms was students’ perceptions of peer approval
on cyberloafing in the classroom (Soh et al., 2018). Finally, students’ attitudes played a strong
factor in cyberloafing in the classroom (Soh et al., 2018; Teneja et al., 2015).
In regards to consumerism and attitudes toward cyberloafing in the classroom, students
believe that education is market-driven, meaning a business transaction (Soh et al., 2018; Taneja
et al., 2015; Wurst et al., 2008). With a business transactional relationship between the student
and college or university, the faculty are accountable to students’ learning, which is also tied to
student satisfaction (Wurst et al., 2008). As indicated by Teneja et al., (2015) because students
believe they are customers and therefore believe they are entitled to cyberloafing. Teneja et al.
(2015) also asserts that students believe learning is a service they purchased, and as a result, they
are entitled to cyberloaf in the classroom.
As stated, students’ beliefs, consumerism, perceived behavioral control, subjective
norms, and attitude contribute to the students’ cyberloafing behaviors. Based on a study of 400
college students across both public and private universities, students believe that professors’
classroom policies have not been effective (Berry & Westfall, 2015). Research suggests 80% of
students believe cyberloafing is not a good practice, but still cyberloaf in the classroom.
Furthermore, this behavior can also distract the professor and impact instruction (Berry &
Westfield, 2015). In another study, 93% of college students believed that students would oppose
a professor’s ban on PEDs. However, 55.7% of students would be receptive to instruction about
28

a classroom policy, and 74% believed there should be a policy (McCoy, 2020). Also, Stephens
and Pantoja (2015) suggested that banning mobile devices in the classroom may have negative
consequences. In addition, the research suggests that students understand the need to manage
their cyberloafing behavior (McCoy, 2020).
Other considerations, according to Varol (2019), are class size and the impact of the
classroom structure on students’ motivation to cyberloaf. Above all, when the internet is
available to students, they tend to cyberloaf (Varol, 2019). However, more research is needed
regarding the classroom structure, teacher effectiveness and its impact on cyberloafing.
Students’ Peers
Firsthand research indicates that students using PEDs in classrooms for non-class-related
work can distract both the user and the students in close proximity to the PEDs (Berry &
Westfield, 2015; Fried, 2008; McCoy, 2020; Parry et al., 2020). An exploratory mixed-methods
study by Parry et al. (2020) examined a semester-long technology policy of one section allowing
the use of technology and another section not. The section that did not use technology benefited
from the policy. In addition, in an original survey of 400 students from colleges and universities,
more than 90% noticed when other students were checking their phones, the activity impacted
their learning (Berry & Westfield, 2015). The study also indicated that only 40% of students
condemned cell phone use in the classroom because it distracted nearby students and 41%
because it distracted the professor (Berry & Westfield, 2015). According to Sana et al. (2013),
laptops in the classroom impacts all students.
Stakeholder Influence and Goal
Cyberloafing activities can negatively impact students and their peers in the classroom
and ultimately impact the stakeholder’s organizational goal. Both professors and students need to
29

successfully manage these environmental factors to support the stakeholder’s organizational goal
of enhancing the classroom learning experience.

Table 4
Justification of Influences for Assessment Purposes
Type of indicator Possible underlying influence How will it be assessed?
Student cyberloafing and
peers distraction
Student behavior, attitudes
and beliefs, classroom
Professor interviews

30

Summary
The literature concludes that cyberloafing behaviors in the classroom are a problem to the
user and those around them. These behaviors impact learning, and there are several reasons
undergraduate students practice cyberloafing. Social cognitive theory (Bandura, 2000) reveals
the relationships among the person (faculty), behavior (instruction and classroom management),
and the impact on the environment (students, peers/classmates, and classroom policies,
classroom). Research suggests that banning devices is not the solution (Berdik, 2018; McCoy,
2020; Stephens & Pantoja, 2016). Berdik (2018) recommended adjusting and adapting to the
PEDs with the teaching rather than completely banning them. Professors can help students with
disabilities and others with attention issues with attention-boosting tools and activities to ensure
it is both an equitable and enhanced learning environment (Hart Barnett, 2017). Techniques on
how to manage those with disabilities need further research and exploration. Regarding personal
influence, there is a motivation to learn if course content is related to students’ interests and
goals (Varol, 2019). Students who believe the task is too difficult to accomplish will have
decreased motivation (Varol, 2019). Through SCT and goal setting theory, professors can
manage students’ cyberloafing behavior in the classroom (Bandura, 2000).
Chapter Three will present the study’s methodological approach. This chapter includes a
description of the study’s purpose, the research questions, population sample, instrumentation,
and data collection and analysis. Qualitative research was the focus of this study, through faculty
observations, to gain a better understanding of managing and self-regulating cyberloafing. In
addition, ethics, positionality, limitations, and delimitations will be explained.

31

Chapter Three: Methodology
Considering the prevalence of PED usage is in the classroom, the purpose of this study
was through faculty perspective, understanding undergraduate business school students’ learning
behavior in the classroom. By better understanding students’ learning behavior, professors can
manage or improve the learning environment where PEDs are prevalent and part of the
communication and learning process. With the 2020 global pandemic, faculty are in a continuous
state of imbalance, seeking solutions to successfully manage the negative effects of PED usage
(Dougherty & DeDoyne, 2020). The study sought to learn through the professors’ lens about
cyberloafing behavior, understanding how and why these effects occur, and how professors can
manage them in the classroom.
Research Questions
The following questions aligned with the theory to help examine the problem of practice
in the undergraduate business school classroom:
1. How does the faculty address and manage students’ cyberloafing behavior in the
undergraduate business school classroom?
2. What is the faculty’s understanding about students’ motivation to cyberloaf in the college
classroom.
3. How do faculty incorporate techniques to help self-regulate the cyberloafing behavior?
In this study, the research method focused on collecting qualitative data, considering that
the study was based on exploratory research. In other words, the study sought to understand the
underlying reasons for the effects of PEDs in the classroom through professors’ perspectives to
discern how to effectively manage cyberloafing or off-task technology use in the undergraduate
business school classroom. With the understanding that electronic devices are prevalent in the
32

classroom, the study can help professors effectively identify and incorporate these devices into
their teaching while managing cyberloafing behavior. Above all, appropriate steps were taken to
confirm the accuracy and credibility of the findings (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
Population and Sample
The type of sampling was nonprobability, yielding a convenience sample of
undergraduate business school faculty, from part-time, adjunct, clinical, and tenured to faculty
who are also in an administrator position. The sample of the population were from a private
university with classroom sizes of no more than forty in a classroom. All the participants
experienced switching from a traditional, in person classroom environment to a remote online
classroom setting at the onset of the 2020 global pandemic in March. In addition, all of the
participants have always taught in a traditional classroom setting and did not have experience
teaching an online course prior to the year 2020. The participants in this study are eight
professors in the business school or in communications studies. All were experienced professors
who teach courses in marketing, communications, management, economics, and finance at
multiple levels, and four professors with administrative experience (a department chair or an
associate dean).
Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Criterion 1: Years of Experience
The majority of the tenure-track and tenured professors had five or more years of
experience teaching undergraduate-level business courses. At least one professor was an adjunct
or part-time professor, at least one was a non-tenured track or clinical professor. At least two had
administrative experience. Professors needed to share their experiences teaching these courses
33

prior to the Covid-19 pandemic. In addition, professors needed to share their experiences
teaching a course as smartphone technology became prevalent in the classroom.
Criterion 2: Demographics
I selected a group of male and female respondents with diverse backgrounds.
Respondents shared their experiences based on their positionality.
Criterion 3: Classroom Environment
The professors opted to teach courses in classrooms of various sizes, ranging from 15 to
40 students. In regards to recruitment, a request via email was sent to the marketing chairperson,
the dean or associate dean of the business school, and the dean of student affairs regarding the
research purpose and explanation of the study to the business school. There was follow-up
communication primarily by email. To receive permission to recruit professors and students, the
chairperson and associate dean of the business school were contacted. There was consistency in
the message with all communication. As for credibility, candidates were purposely selected as
key stakeholders who could speak to the research problem and questions in alignment with the
study’s purpose (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Efforts were made to maintain the same group of
participants, and there was a series of interviews to support the study’s credibility and accuracy
(Creswell & Creswell 2018). To increase credibility, the research was conducted at an
undergraduate business school directly aligned with the problem of practice and research
purpose.
Instrumentation
The instrumentation was an interview protocol. Based on the SCT triadic reciprocity
model (Bandura, 2005), the questions explored faculty’s perspectives on college students’
cyberloafing behavior in the classroom. The “personal” means the student, their sense of self-
34

efficacy, and how they self-regulate or impact their cognitive load (Ambrose et al., 2010;
Bandura, 2005). Based on this SCT theoretical framework, this approach discovered professors’
classroom management best practices. The semi-structured interviews, and each was 45 to 60
minutes long, took place via Zoom video conferencing, and was recorded on a local drive, on a
personal computer.
In addition to the semi-structured interviews, syllabi were collected from all participants
for document analysis. Analysis of all the syllabi confirmed the data’s reliability and
trustworthiness.
Data Collection
The data were gathered through interviews and document analysis consisting of a
complete review of various uses of classroom policies. To review classroom policies,
participants were asked to submit their syllabi before and after the interviews. In turn, the report
was provided to them to help them improve the college classroom experience. The document
analysis was utilized to support interview data analysis. An analysis of the syllabi combined with
the interview data allowed a deeper understanding of the data set.
Gaining an in-depth understanding of participants’ classroom experiences through
interviews, can test the trustworthiness, dependability, and reliability of the data (Creswell &
Creswell, 2018; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). The interviews and document analysis increased the
data’s dependability and reliability. Notes were taken throughout the interview process.
Recordings of the interviews were transcribed and cross-checked with the note taking. In regards
to credibility, key stakeholders were purposefully selected for the study (Creswell & Creswell
2018). Regarding dependability, the data were checked for accuracy through cross-checking of
note-taking, the syllabi and transcribed recordings (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Lincoln & Guba,
35

1985). The participants were all asked the same questions. To add to credibility, the research was
conducted at an undergraduate business school directly aligned with the problem of practice and
research purpose.
Data Analysis
From the research problem, purpose, questions, data collection, analysis, writing and reporting
or disseminating the research, various strategies described under limitations and delimitations were
used to improve trustworthiness (Creswell & Creswell 2018). All interviews were recorded with note-
taking, transcribed, and then the recordings were deleted for anonymity. For transferability, data
analysis included examining word frequencies and keyword coding to support and substantiate rich,
useful data (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). For confirmability, an Excel spreadsheet and audit trail led back to
the raw data in recordings and transcripts (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Based on these studies, specific
management themes emerged: implementing educational policies, monitoring and tracking
cyberloafing in the classroom, and a deterrence strategy. The findings yielded recommended solutions
to manage cyberloafing. The findings potentially lead to positive reinforcement behavior, providing
accountability between student and professor. The solutions provide faculty in higher education with
tools and information to proactively manage cyberloafing in the classroom.
Ethics
Ethical issues and the organization’s code of ethics were considered throughout the
research process, from research problem, purpose, questions, data collection, analysis, writing,
reporting, and disseminating the research (Creswell & Creswell 2018). According to guidance by
Merriam and Tisdell (2016), the study addressed appropriate research questions to reduce or
prevent bias, such as limiting generalization based on a small sample. The axiological questions
needed to be explored more to avoid research bias. Through semi-structured interviews, I
36

avoided research bias to ensure I was not simply finding what I wanted to find. I kept in mind
that the interests the research served were primarily the students in support of the business school
and university’s mission. I focused on being completely transparent and clear with the
communication with the respondents (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
It was critical to communicate with the key stakeholders from the start so that there was a
mutual understanding of the research purpose. With participants, there should be informed consent to
ensure they know their participation is voluntary and that they have the right to end that participation at
any time (Glesne, 2011). In addition, I maintained a formal professional relationship with the
participants to minimize issues with power dynamics and bias (Glesne, 2011). There was no
compensation to the participants. In addition, I maintained a high level of integrity throughout the
research process by keeping the relationship formal, with the understanding of my role as the researcher
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). There can be potential issues with student confidentiality, so written and
verbal consent and nondisclosures must be properly documented and recorded. Therefore, all recorded
responses and content were deemed strictly confidential and properly secured and stored.
Positionality
The researcher’s topic of interest is how the use of personal electronic devices can impact
learning in an undergraduate college classroom. I hold several identities in relation to this topic. I
have an undergraduate degree in communications, received an MBA in Global Management at
Thunderbird, am a marketing professional, and have been an adjunct marketing professor since
2002. I hold several roles: an adjunct professor at two undergraduate business schools,
business/marketing consultant, community leader, and doctoral student. As an adjunct professor
for nearly 18 years, I experienced how technology impacts learning in the classroom as well as in
the home and community. I see the value of seeking through unbiased methods where there is a
37

cause and effect in the data gathered, experiential research, and an exploration of multiple
viewpoints to reach a conclusion (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). I have relied on classroom
experiences, yet, according to Duke and Martin (2011), one must not rely on research based on
only experiences. My multiple lenses as a researcher, professor, and student provided an
understanding of why cyberloafing behaviors are prevalent and how they can be effectively
managed in the classroom while planning, collecting, analyzing, and reporting data.
Limitations and Delimitations
This qualitative study had some limitations that were not under my control. First, the
email with the recruitment questionnaire was sent to a group of professors with limited
accessibility and time constraints. The email was sent at the end of the spring semester, a busy
time of the year. In addition, research was conducted during the global pandemic and therefore,
all the interviews were via Zoom conference and not in person. In person would be ideal as I
would be able to recognize all types of communication such as verbal and nonverbal cues. At
times, the Zoom connection posed a challenge when the video froze, I would have to wait and
restate the question or ask them to repeat their answers. In addition to accessibility and time
constraints, qualitative research has a limitation that involves self-reported responses of multiple
perceptions, and may be challenging to be independently verified (USCLibraries)
In regards to delimitations, I purposely selected participants who would consider taking
the time to be interviewed and at the end of the semester. These summative types of interviews
were during a time when they have just completed their semester of teaching. According to
Creswell and Creswell (2018), key stakeholders help determine the number of participants and
refine the research problem and questions. Eight participants were selected to ensure there were
substantial data and documents (syllabi) collected to support this study’s credibility and
38

trustworthiness. To increase credibility, the research was conducted at an undergraduate business
school directly aligned with the problem of practice. According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016),
appropriately developed research questions reduce bias. By preventing bias, exploratory research
goes beyond simply finding out what the researcher expected to find. I kept in mind the interest
of the research is to help provide the best quality education for students. The questions were
designed based on the research and input received by multiple faculty in higher education.

39

Chapter Four: Findings
The purpose of this study was to apply SCT to examine the person, behavior, and
environment that impact cyberloafing behavior in the undergraduate school classroom. Chapter
One discussed the problem of cyberloafing behavior in the undergraduate college classroom.
Chapter Two provides a review of the literature and research applying SCT. Chapter Three
outlines the methodology used to study the assumed influences. The purpose of Chapter Four is
to present the results of this study in terms of answering the research questions. The analysis
began by gathering a list of professors in the business school for interviewing purposes. The
interview questions were constructed according to the methodology.
Participating Stakeholders
Participants were eight professors in the business school, including those in
administrative roles. An email was distributed to potential participants. The sample was a
convenience sample, and no identifiers were collected during this study to protect the
participants’ identities. The data collection took place over three weeks. Follow-up emails
provided information reinforcing confidentiality. In addition, the participants submitted their
course syllabi. There was a recruitment questionnaire asked of participants who submitted an
email address indicating their interest in being interviewed. The interviews consisted of 12
questions to expand on the questions in regards to SCT.
Eight professors were interviewed, and each is identified herein by a pseudonym. The
interviews consisted of 12 open-ended questions aligned with SCT. All respondents were
interviewed via Zoom. All the interview questions were addressed by applying Bandura’s (2005)
triadic reciprocity model, addressing the faculty, faculty’s behavior, and the environment through
professors’ perspectives. Demographic information related to age, race, gender, experience, and
40

title was collected. The professors who responded to the email work either in the undergraduate
business school or in the department of communications. The participants were two males and
six females. The majority were Caucasian, one was a woman of color, and one was a male of
Middle Eastern descent.
Of the eight professors interviewed, four were in an administrator type of position, two
were associate deans, two were department chairpersons, one was an adjunct or part-time, one
was a full-time non-tenured faculty member, and one was a full-time tenured professor. The
administrator or chairperson provided responses from a leadership perspective. Table 5 provides
a visual representation of the interviewees.

41

Table 5
Participants’ Demographics
Professor Position Background Demographics
A Non-tenured clinical
professor, teaches 75%
undergrad and 25% grad

9 years Female, 48, U.S.,
White
B Tenured, associate
professor/dept. chair

14 years Female, 43, U.S.,
White
C Tenured associate
professor

11 years Female, 40, U.S.,
from India
D Tenured, associate
professor

14 years Female, 47,
White/Canadian
E Tenured associate
professor, department
chair

15 years Female, 35, U.S.,
White
F Nontenured/adjunct
faculty teaching
undergraduates

8 years Male, 41,
U.S./Middle
Eastern
G Tenured, associate dean 22 years Female, 48, U.S.,
White
H Tenured professor,
associate dean
Male, 56

42

Findings
Results from the interviews are presented in this chapter, along with the findings and
recurring themes. This chapter is organized to present the results related to SCT, the professor’s
observation or perception of cyberloafing behavior, and the environment which includes the
students, peers, classroom, policies and culture. The analysis included systematic line-by-line
coding to identify topics, similar words, and/or phrases.

Table 6
Professors for Qualitative Inquiry
Professor
(pseudonym)
Associate Dean/Chair School/Department
A Clinical Professor Business
B Associate Dean Business
C Associate Professor Business
D Associate Professor Business
E Department Chair Business
F Adjunct Professor Business
G Associate Dean Communications
H Associate Dean Business

43

Research Questions
1. How does the faculty address and manage students’ cyberloafing behavior in the
undergraduate business school classroom?
2. What is the faculty’s understanding about students’ motivation to cyberloaf in the college
classroom?
3. How do faculty incorporate techniques to help self-regulate the cyberloafing behavior?
Research Question 1
The first research question was designed to understand how the participants address and
manage cyberloafing in the undergraduate business school classroom. The interview findings
showed similarities and variations in syllabus, teaching style, classroom structure pedagogy, and
job responsibilities. Participants varied significantly in their views of laptop use; however, all the
participants’ responses were very similar in their views of mobile phone use. The following
sections describe what participants required and the different duties they were responsible for in
classroom management based on Bandura’s (2005) triadic reciprocity model: faculty, behavior,
and environment.
Gender and Age
Five of the interview questions were asked to determine how to address and manage
cyberloafing behavior, specifically what classroom policies work or do not work in the
classroom This information helps address the question about how faculty manage and mitigate
the cyberloafing behavior in the undergraduate business school classroom. Information revealed
that professors manage and mitigate cyberloafing in similar ways, though they provided different
scenarios.
44

Regarding managing PEDs in the classroom, six respondents revealed that gender and
age played major roles. A theme across all interviews was that female faculty have to work
harder than male faculty to manage PEDs in the classroom. Six participants believed women
needed to work harder, have to learn better techniques or strategies. Specifically, Professor A
said, “definitely see a gender variability…unfair.” A female professor said she would come
across as a “bitch and mean. An older White male professor can lock the door. And I don’t know
if I can get away from that.” In addition, age was reported by five participants to be a factor in
classroom management. Professor B stated,
Many of our students are White, and [I] hope my classroom is perceived as inclusive and
fair. Biggest demographic factor [of faculty] is age and trying not to be the dinosaur in
the room. If it were a male figure, they would have an easier time.
Professor C (female) stated,
Higher expectations for younger and women. Judged harder than male counterparts; seen
that across the board. More forgiving with older faculty, especially 60 and over.
Regarding technology, there’s a family dynamic. They [students] see them as a
grandparent. Male students have a hard time seeing a woman in authority. My colleague
is respected more than I am.
Professor G (female) highlighted that women faculty of color have a difficult time.
Professor H stated that he has an “authoritative style” and probably would not work for women:
“My style would not work as a woman; there is an attitude that can be learned.” However,
Professor H said it “depends on personality.” Female professors, especially the younger
professors, feel they must work more to gain respect. Furthermore, Professor H stated,
45

We must learn how to teach the pedagogy. What we need to spend more time on
socialization and attitude with authority, safe, boundaries, needs are going to be met. Best
buddy—not a safe environment. Need to model the kind of behavior you want your
students to have. You may rarely use a four-letter-word—they learn to do it. Younger
faculty rarely enforce no cell phones, than older faculty. There may be an age issue
because we see what it’s like before and after.
All professors stated that generally, they are against mobile phone use in the classroom;
however, Professor C stated that “it depends. They are not allowed to use mobile phones in my
classroom because they scroll Instagram, and I don’t have patience for that.” The younger faculty
suggested offering more flexibility when it comes to students using PEDs in the classroom, as
they were not as strict as older faculty. Professor F stated,
Not that I’m against it, I just don’t encourage it. It’s almost disrespectful while your head
is down, and it is out of respect. I almost relate it to business. What I do, if they need to
take a break, I allow it.
Older faculty liked a standardized no-PED policy. There was a common theme about
adapting to the culture in terms of PEDs in the classroom. Multiple professors believed they must
integrate the technology, and Professors D and F both stated the phrase “this is the way the world
works or the world we live in.” Professor E stated, “Using pencil and paper is not the world we
live in anymore.”
Six of the participants mentioned that the older White male professor would not have
students who challenge authority. One female professor mentioned that she “could not get away
with locking the door once class starts.” Students challenge and question authority, especially
female professors. Professor G stated,, “There is more work you have to do to gain respect. I
46

think, too, students are more likely than they used to be to challenge authority; they are entitled
or dislike being told what to do.” To gain compliance, she had to explain why they had these
rules and that it was better for the class and learners. Professor G said,
I think obviously who you are as a person there are particular social expectations for how
you are going to interact with students. I think it's much easier for an older male professor
to be strict about something and not really have to offer an explanation, and more likely
students are going to follow the rules because that person said the rules. We know from
the literature and students evaluations that female faculty, younger, women, faculty of
color, and all that intersectionality, the reputation building that has to happen in the
classroom for the respect to flow automatically. Students challenge authority when they
think the person does not naturally have the authority. I think for me, part of what my
strategy to get compliance is explanation. Explaining why we have these standards and
rules, I am not just saying this, that it's better for our class and for our learners. The more
you diverge from White man the more work you have to do to gain that respect so that
changes your strategy.
As for a more standardized policy, seven participants stated that they would like it,
particularly for mobile phones, or would not be opposed to it. Two professors mentioned that it
would prevent the professor “from being the heavy” or “take the pressure off of the professor,”
while two stated that there should be “flexibility.” One of the business professors said there is a
standardized policy, but it is not enforced. There is a default within the policy that it is up to the
professor to use and enforce it. Professor D said, “I think it’s confusing to students because every
professor (different) and if there was a standardized policy, no mobile phones would work.
Another issue is academic integrity and that opens another can of worms.”
47

Professor D said “ At the beginning of class one of the students asked if there was a no-
laptop policy in the class, so there may be awareness of a policy.” Another issue that was
brought up by four professors was in regards to academic integrity. For example, Professor B
said, “Cheating on phones can be problematic.” Professor H said students took photos of the
exam, texted the exam, and it was texted back with the answers.” Professor E explained, “It’s too
much pressure on them because it’s so part of their grade, and we are grade-focused.” Professor
F said in regards to quizzes and exams, “It’s hard for them to be thinking it’s just a class, just a
letter grade.” Professor G stated, “Students do not like other students getting distracted. I think
they think it’s rude and thank me for collecting their phones” for exams. According to Professor
G, students confided that they caught peers cheating in other classrooms, and they liked when the
professor “creates an environment to keep them from cheating. And there’s also an appreciation
to help other students from cheating. Students want to help other students in that “they want
them to do well.” It can be a huge impact because classroom sizes are small versus a big lecture
hall. Professor G likes to watch them grow over the years, from freshmen to seniors, the
developmental part of the learning process.
As for the ideal classroom, eight professors generally believed in a “no mobile phone”
policy with one male professor stating that, “Not that I am against it, I don’t encourage students
using mobile phones in the classroom.” Professor H stated that, even with the existing policies,
he spends much time telling students to put them away. Other reasons, as stated earlier, are
academic integrity or cheating issues in the classroom. The students believe they are the
customers or there is a “you [professors] are paid to do this” mentality. Professor C said, “They
are paid to get content, and that’s what makes it more challenging.”

48

Integration of Technology
Professors stated the need to integrate technology in the classroom more fully. Several
professors were not sure how to utilize technology in the classroom or how that would work.
One professor wanted to refrain or completely avoid using PowerPoint presentations and be
more discussion-based, while another stated a “flipped classroom” would work. The
“professionalism” grade or a grading rubric in their syllabus works for the majority of the
professors. Clearly defining the meaning of “professionalism” or “active participation” helps.
What also is helpful in distinguishing between attendance and participation (attending class does
not equal participation). Three professors address attendance as a part of their professionalism
grade. In fact, the word “professionalism” was used more frequently than “attendance.”
Professor B said “incentivizing students to staying focused; something I should research; tied
back to the professionalism grade. Not a one strike and then you’re out.”
Professor E stated,
Honestly I have a professionalism component for my grades. I took it out for Covid-19.
I feel like it doesn’t do much. Now that I’ve taken out during remote teaching, I think
(professionalism component) matters. I think students appreciate having more autonomy
and appreciate how understanding I am. I am not super rigid. I can be flexible and that
helps.
Preparedness Findings
Regarding the learning environment, professors stated that integrating PEDs in the
classroom would be ideal for individual and group accountability purposes so that everyone
comes to the classroom fully prepared for class discussions. Professors C and D taught the same
course, required laptops, and said there is variability in students’ levels of preparedness and
49

knowledge. Professor D stated there were “two groups: one group that did the work and amazing
but the ones that did not [do the work] were behind.” Professor C said,
If they miss [the topic], it will throw them off track. If you look away, you will fall
behind because we move very quickly in [this course and need to] make sure they are up
to speed; also different levels or knowledge with students who are struggling. Open to
any major; with marketing majors so they struggle with it. Finance majors are ok because
they don’t struggle with [the course]. But [students] struggle the most with it.
Professor C also said, “Not all students reach out for help.” Professor C stated that it
“would be great if they have a tablet instead of a laptop in the physical classroom. For example,
you can write pictures rather than typing it out. Having the same equipment in the classroom
would be beneficial as well.”
According to the interviews, all professors felt setting the tone by being flexible is a key
advantage for those with documented disabilities. Professor C commented,
I think we need to make accommodations. We have a disability center for those who are
documented that helps manage learning differences and disabilities. They can go to the
disability office, and they take responsibility, and they don’t ask us to bend over
backwards for them. The students are super polite. I had some students who used note-
takers, and we can promote a note-taking program at the school of business.
Although all respondents stated that they were flexible with their management of those
with documented disabilities, Professor C commented about the inequities in the system not only
with students but also with faculty. The professor said,
If you have students with learning disabilities, such as learning differences, they are hurt
more because of the inequities in our system. How about faculty with disabilities? We
50

don’t think about that. I think they struggled with technology use and are proactive. I
think the inequity part has been huge. Zoom recordings were beneficial for those with
disabilities. There is closed captioning in Zoom. If students missed what was discussed,
they can go to the recording and transcripts.
A common theme from all interviewees was a standardized “no mobile phone” policy.
There was consensus in support of a standardized “no mobile phone policy” in the classroom.
Although professors generally supported a standardized policy, the responses varied in regards to
laptops. Laptops are a requirement for specific upper-division business courses, such as for
group projects. Generally, professors discourage or are against laptops for notetaking purposes.
Above all, there was a common theme about mobile phone use and academic integrity or
cheating issues. Two of the younger professors E and F believed that professors must be flexible
with the policy.
Document Analysis of Classroom policies from Syllabi
Document analysis of the classroom policies from the syllabi revealed the themes
identified about professors’ management of cyberloafing behaviors in the classroom.
Two professors included “raise or raising hand.” All the professors’ classroom policies in the
syllabi are different, with only two that entailed some similar language as they both came from
the same department. Regarding the faculty addressing and managing cyberloafing behavior, as
it relates to SCT, the data revealed themes about being present, active learning, being respectful,
and incorporating punitive language.
Professionalism and Active Participant
Seven professors incorporated “professionalism” into their syllabi. In addition, half of the
professors asserted being “present.” The first professor stated, “Be attentive/present and do not
51

work on other tasks, “ Another said, “We will be fully present for each other so we can learn
from each other. “Be present and participate, “ said a third professor. “I expect each student to be
present,” said a fourth professor.
Under classroom civility, which is part of teaching about professionalism, a common
theme among five of the professors was the idea of “respect” or being “courteous” to minimize
disruptions and distractions: “respect your fellow classmates and professor,” “consistently act in
a respectful and courteous manner to all students and professor,” “offer your classmates and the
professor the respect and courtesy of not disrupting,” “it is imperative to respect both the
instructor and your fellow classmates,” and “in order that your attention not be divided, and
everyone give proper respect to whomever is speaking.”
Two professors mentioned class engagement, which was tied to an active engagement or
class engagement grade. Six professors mentioned “active” in their syllabi. The first stated,
“Participate Actively.” The second one stated, “Actively contribute to class and group
discussions.” The third professor stated, “Active engagement is key to learning.” The fourth
professor stated, “Active learner,” and the fifth professor stated, “Actively participating during
class sessions.” Lastly, the sixth professor stated, “This means actively participating in class
and/or group discussion and paying attention during class lecture.”
Punitive Language
As for punitive language, four professors included it in their syllabi. One professor stated,
“Excellent attendance and participation will help your grade while absences or minimal
participation will negatively impact your final grade.” A second one stated, “Failure to act in a
professional manner will have repercussions on your course grade.” A third professor stated,
“Please be aware that repeated cases of failing to respect our class expectations for student
52

participation in online classes (see below) will constitute a score of ‘0’ for class engagement,
regardless of the quality of your other contributions.” A fourth professor stated in her syllabus
about no PEDs in the classroom: “If anyone is found texting, websurfing, emailing or otherwise
engaged in electronic correspondence during class time, you will be asked to stop and your final
grade will be lowered for each infraction.” These common themes about professionalism,
respect, present, and active participation are what professors incorporate into their syllabi to
support the management of the cyberloafing. In addition, punitive language is incorporated into
half of the professors’ syllabi.

Table 7
Professors’ Responses: Standardized PED policy for Qualitative Inquiry
Professor
(pseudonym)
Support
standardized PED
no laptop policy?
Support standardized
PED no mobile
phone policy?
Tenured
A Yes Yes No
B No Yes Yes
C Yes Yes Yes
D No Yes Yes
E No Yes Yes
F No No No
G Yes Yes Yes
H Yes Yes Yes

53

Research Question 2
The second research question sought to identify, from the faculty perspective, the factors
that motivate undergraduate business students to use PEDs for non-task purposes in the
classroom. Interview Questions 1 and 3 through 6 were developed to examine what professors
understand about the students’ motivation to cyberloaf and behavioral influences of specific
cyberloafing activities such as habitual, anxiety, FOMO, acting out of protest, boredom, and
student as customer. The interviews revealed varied opinions on these topics.
All the interviewees’ responses were in-depth and yield data about the research question,
yet there was a breadth of responses. Participants believe typing lecture notes on a laptop is not
beneficial to the student. For example, Professor H stated, “It’s taking complex data, and there
are cognitive processing issues.” Although more necessary than mobile phones, professors
believed students using personal laptops in the classroom were a problem.
Ideal Class Size
When asked about the ideal class size, participants stated that the ideal number of
students in the classroom was about 20 to 25; however, the fewer, the better. Professor E said,
“Twenty to 25 would be awesome,” and Professor G said there was a difference between 20 and
25 students. She said, “It’s really a different environment with twenty versus twenty-five. I can
feel the extra presence with the extra five. With 25 “you can go around and let everyone talk,
and with more people, you definitely feel it.” Professor C said, a “Class of 15 easier...but with
30 kids it’s harder.” Professors also mentioned the need for more preparation in discussions.
Professor C stated, “The more hand-holding, the more ill-prepared they [students] are.” Professor
F stated that the ideal classroom environment would be “students being prepared and on time,”
while Professor E said, “Be prepared and respectful.” Professor B stated, “I tried the flipped
54

classroom, and they came unprepared.” Professor D also said that her class would be increasing
from 20 to up to 40 people and, therefore, she would need to learn new techniques.
When asked about the ideal classroom environment, Professor E said, “Being responsible
over their learning.” Professor D said, “I teach mostly seniors. I think they need to do their own
thing and be responsible.” Professor A stated there needs to be “conducive space with
collaboration and accountability.”
Professor H said, “For compliance, students need explanation.” Professor H also said that
students need to be “explained why we have these rules, better for our class and learners. The
more work you have to do to gain respect. I think students are more likely than they used to be to
challenge authority and entitled or not to be told what to do.”
“There are students who believe they can multitask,” said Professor D. Two professors
mentioned that there are digital inequities, especially with those with disabilities, which can
single them out. Professor C stated,
One of the challenges is the day they need it, they don’t bring the computer. I send
reminders, and one student said this was your job. Tell me where that is in my job
description? How do they get away from this? Multiple deans have said they [students]
are the customers.
From their responses, professors felt that the number students makes an impact in
learning in the classroom and that having 20 to 25 students is manageable. One professor
believed the university has become more customer-centric and that students challenge authority.
There was a belief that students should take responsibility or be accountable for their learning.
55

Note Taking on Laptops
In regards to the first interview question, half the professors believed notetaking on
laptops does not help with the learning, with one specifically stating that it could lead to
cyberloafing behavior. Professor A said, “Research shows students should take notes by hand.”
Professor D said that taking notes on a laptop does not work. For example, professor C with
laptops, “taking notes causes issues with cyberloafing.” Professor G stated,
Students will transcribe a lecture by typing every single word the faculty is saying
without thinking about what they are saying. So, cognitive processing while you are
typing versus the cognitive processing with writing are different. With typing, the student
isn’t really thinking about that stuff. Without listening or thinking about what the faculty
are saying. I think you are doing an interactive discussion and what’s important is the
interaction so put your laptop away.
Professor H also stated, “It’s taking complex data and there are cognitive processing issues.”
Professor H also said, “Instead of PowerPoint slides, I offer partial notes, handouts for students,
which evolved into an intentionally incomplete lecture handout packet.” He conducted a test on
the learning using complete versus incomplete notes (learning enhanced learning) and has
published it: “The interaction is great. It is a lot of work but worth it.” As for what did not work
in terms of motivation, he started incorporating punitive language in the syllabus. Another way
to engage his class was to ask a question. If he sees an issue with a phone, he will call on them. If
the issue continues, he talks to them after class and is subtle instead of direct: “This generation of
students is more fragile.” All professors incorporate a grading rubric that is tied to a
professionalism or class conduct grade. Professor F updates the grades throughout the semester
and “course corrects,” which motivates the students to actively stay engaged and participate in
56

the classroom. Another motivator, according to Professor F, “asking them to get up and move to
another location in class which keeps them on their toes.”
Regarding the interview question about cyberloafing as a distraction, Professor A stated,
“Especially in a small classroom, telling me at my face I am not important. Maybe I need thicker
skin.” Professor C said, “It’s a super distraction, and we lost 2 minutes. Then, we have a
conversation [on] why they are cyberloafing, and we got 19 people wasting their time. As a
faculty, you get thrown off. When you see someone not paying attention, it makes me lose my
concentration.” Professor B was asked about getting distracted when students are on their PEDs,
she stated,
Absolutely and that’s my number one frustration, but I get really distracted, and it
disrupts my train of thought. Maybe, on one hand, I need to find a way to not get
distracted and not completely disrupt. Not fair to other students who are engaged in the
moment. It bothers me a lot, and I take personally. I put myself in their shoes and did not
listen to every single word. I have to learn not to take it personally.
Professor C states, “Absolutely. All these students are adults and get really distracted and
disrupts my train of thought, and [I lose] my story and focus with 99% of the class. I need to
figure it out, manage.” As for Professor E,
Definitely, if someone is laughing or giggling, it throws me off. Thinking are they
laughing at me? What are they laughing about? Then if you call them out, it can distract
the other students. It throws me off, too, to simultaneously manage it.
About being distracted, Professor F stated,
It’s about reading the audience. If I see with their head down, I am generally ok. If I feel
too many are [heads down], then I pause. So, yeah, of course. If the vast majority, then
57

we have an issue. One or two does not distract you. It’s for a short period of time. When
they put their phone, I call on them and draw them in and engage.
From their responses, professors believe the physical classroom environment is a factor
that motivates students to engage in cyberloafing. Regarding the environment, when classroom
sizes increase, so does the cyberloafing behavior. Three participants believed that the classroom
environment, with twenty to thirty students is manageable. The common theme about what
motivates students to engage in cyberloafing is that students have a tendency to cyberloaf when
they are sitting in the back of the classroom. Professors are distracted by students’ cyberloafing
behavior. Professors said it is a distraction to them and others when they “called them out” when
students were cyberloafing. Also, professors are aware of the fact that students are part of
Generation Z culture and, therefore, they have an acceptance of PEDs in the classroom.
Although they understand it is a part of their everyday life, there is a sense of frustration.
Professors believe there needs to be a way to incorporate technology in the classroom, but not for
note-taking. Professors take into consideration that students are part of Generation Z and,
therefore, are “fragile” and “question authority.” In addition, professors get distracted when
students cyberloaf.
Research Question 3
The third research question was intended to explore how faculty incorporate techniques
students self-regulate their cyberloafing in the classroom. All interview questions applied to this
research question, which was constructed to explore and identify various methods or ways
faculty help students self-regulate cyberloafing behavior. Faculty’s techniques that promote self-
efficacy were explored and identified as methods or ways to help students manage cyberloafing
58

behavior in the classroom. These techniques or methods can support the management of
cyberloafing behavior addressed in previous sections.
Value of Professionalism and Preparation
Professors highlighted the value of professionalism in their syllabi. The majority of
professors (A, B, D, E, and H) have a professionalism grade. Professor G stated the need to
“explain why we have these rules:”
They need to practice not to be distracted all of the time. This is not a time to take notes.
This is a classroom that there are discussions. I do a lot of lectures. If I do a flipped
classroom, they come unprepared. I don’t use a textbook.
Professors A, B, F said their students do not read and that they need to come prepared. Professor
A said, “Students didn't read or retain what they read.” Professors B and E mentioned that they
do not use textbooks, only readings. “Don’t be a jerk. Treat others the way you want to be
treated,” said Professor B. “Respect their point of view and time,” said Professor H.
Professor E, who teaches an upper-division course designed for marketing majors, stated
that most seniors are able to self-regulate. All professors mentioned that creating various ways to
promote discussion also helps. In fact, Professors F and H place a high value on socialization in
their classroom. For example, Professor F stated that at the beginning of the course, he tells his
students that he wants them to “be comfortable about being uncomfortable.” One of his tactics is
to have everyone in the class get up and make an introduction to at least one person in the class.”
In regards to socialization, Professor H said,
That’s really important because we are educating them to be good people; not just
teaching them the material. Faculty don’t understand there is a whole socialization
component to this. That’s why online learning [is a] problem. Teaching socialization
59

skills from small class sizes instead of a 500-seat auditorium. Space matters, so you can
lose the quality in there.
Professor G helps students by enforcing her standardized policy: “It’s pretty aggressive.” During
exams, she asks them to “take their phone out and bring to the front of the classroom and ask
them to put the phones on my desk.” She reminds them of the policy and that if she catches
students with their phones, their final grades may be lowered. As a self-awareness exercise, she
did say there was a time period about eight years ago when she asked everyone to participate in
“a media fast for 48 hours,” and the reaction was similar to someone with a drug addiction.
Professor G stated her experience with students putting their phones away.
The emotional attachment was quite different today. I think there is now a new
movement to put the phone away. They [have] more self-awareness, and are willing to
put the phone down. It’s easier now versus it was just entering into the system. They
would put it away.
With five professors, a common theme emerged about the need for a consistent approach.
The following statements from all the older (over age 40) professors were made about
consistency. Professor A said, “I did not have a consistent approach. Professor B said, “I think I
would have been stricter years ago. I think it slowly crept up on us. I would let it go in the past.
So it’s more about consistency.” Professor C stated, “I wish we have consistencies in the
classroom.” As for Professor D, “I think it has been fairly consistent but got slightly worse.”
Then finally, Professor H stated, “defining my expectations and being consistent.” Professor H
also stated, “You must set boundaries and model the behavior you want the students to have.”
Six out of eight professors “call them out” as a reminder tactic to help students self-
regulate. One mentioned that she does not like to call them out. One stated that with this
60

generation, one needs to be careful to call them out and that it is better to be subtle. Professor A
said, “I hate having to call out. Professor B said, “Some said they’re paying for it and should be
on them.” Professor D stated, “Once in a while, I would call them out.” However, Professor D
also said, “I would call them out and realize that they are looking up something. So, that’s a
useful distraction.” Also, Professor E claimed, “If you call them out, it can distract other
students.” If Professor H sees a student on the phone, he stated, “I will call on them, and if there
is an issue, talk to them after class and be subtle instead of direct. This generation of students is
more fragile.” As for Professor F said,
I call them out one on one and say I want to set you up for success in this class, I want
you to be successful in this class. And we are in class, and if they want to check the score
[on the mobile phone]. That’s what I would do [as a student]. I need that refresher and
then I’m in back I’m engaged.
Regarding facilitating class discussions Professor H said,
I may call on them; often in the back that may have something important to say. Making
something germane to the discussion; respectful of people’s point of view and time.
There is a whole socialization component to this. That’s why online learning is a
problem. We are educating them to be good people and not just teaching them material.
From their responses, professors value the professionalism grade and believe there should
be a consistent approach when helping students with self-regulation. Professors believed that
“calling the students out” helped the students self-regulate. They also asserted that “calling the
students out” has been a distraction to both the students and the professor. They also believe
networking and socialization are important to learning. Two professors stated about policing
61

students. Professor A said “I don’t want to police them,” and Professor F said “I am not here to
police you.”
Classroom Structure Results
All professors asserted that the classroom environment plays a major role in supporting
self-regulation. Under the second research question, the consensus was that 25 or fewer students
in a classroom was ideal. However, a couple of professors, Professors H and P, mentioned that a
stadium-style, multilevel, or tiered classroom works best for 35 to 40 students or more. Professor
H mentioned there are benefits to a tiered classroom such as “projection or acoustics in one,
especially for female professors, as they can be heard.” The traditional single-level rectangular
classroom is “not great,” according to Professor B. However, most of the other professors did
prefer the traditional layout due to the ability to move around the classroom. As Professor C
stated, it is “difficult [for] faculty to walk up the aisle in a dress and heels” in a tiered classroom.
Another female professor stated that it is difficult to move around without getting too close to
students. Professor D said,
The class is usually capped at 20 students, so [we] usually end up in a smaller flat
classroom, rather than 36-40 of them. Students who are interested and engaged sit in
front, and the ones who sit in the back sit under the radar. I can move around but can’t get
in among the students unless I plow my way to the back. Courses are changing, so it will
become 36–40 students.
Professor A stated, in regards to peer distraction and where students sit, noting that
students who sit in the back are more distracted Professor H and D mentioned experiences with
students who sat in the back of the class and discovered they were cyberloafing on their laptops.
Professor D said a professor was in the back of her class and noticed
62

Students on their laptops trading stocks. Not everyone was 100% engaged. I should have
realized. You really want most students to be engaged, need to find the activity really
engaging. I still haven’t figured out what the approach would be.
Professor F stated,
Professors have very selfish goals. Put up 50 PowerPoint slides. That recipe worked in
the old days. [Today,] given the distraction and students learn differently. I have students
who are very international. Very shy. And I have students do what they want. That’s OK.
They are really not engaged, sit in the back row. You have to police it to an extent.
From their responses, single-level traditionally laid out classrooms work best for
professors with few students. Two professors who teach in a classroom of up to 40 students
prefer tiered multi-level room design. A common theme about students who sit in the back of the
classroom was that they tend to cyberloaf.
Document Analysis
All professors interviewed shared their syllabi; however, most of the syllabi are current
and took into consideration remote learning. All professors in the business school included a
detailed professionalism component, which one professor called a class conduct grade. One
professor’s syllabus was the most simplified and included a paragraph about “electronic
devices.” Seven professors used statements from classroom policy taken from the professors’
syllabi in regards to professionalism. One syllabus stated, “Participation in class, discussions,
activities, and assignments is vital to your learning.” Four of the professors included language
about both professionalism and how the college will prepare students for the workplace. One
professor’s syllabus stated,
63

Professionalism: This course and your college experience are intended to prepare you for
professional work. Consistently act in a respectful and courteous manner to all students
and professor. Please contact the professor as soon as possible if you anticipate any issues
with the professionalism component, including having your camera on during live class
sessions.
Another professor’s syllabus stated,
As business students, your ultimate goal is to obtain a job and enter the professional
world. Therefore, this course requires professional behavior, contribution and
preparation. A good way to think about professionalism is to consider whether or not
what you are doing would be acceptable during a meeting or at your job.
A third professor defined the term professionalism and wrote, “The ability to act professionally
and to communicate in an appropriate manner is critical to success in any career field.”
The fourth professor noted,
As an instructor of a college course and a professional… I will treat my obligations to the
class as I would any serious professional arrangement. I will expect the same from any
student striving to improve their knowledge, professionalism, and successfully complete
this course. You will be graded according to your ability to adhere to the following
guidelines and exhibit appropriate business-minded professionalism.
The fifth professor wrote in his syllabus,
As an instructor of a college course and a 20-year professional...I treat teaching and my
other obligations to you and the rest of the class as I would any serious professional
arrangement. I expect the same from any student learning to become a business
professional and expecting to successfully complete this course.
64

In response to these excerpts from the syllabi, the professors are instructing students on
how the classroom will prepare them for the business world.
In regards to precise language utilized to support self-regulation instructional techniques,
only two professors had specific information in the syllabus about no PEDs in the classroom.
One professor’s syllabus mentioned,
All cell phones, PDAs, laptops, and other digital technology must be turned off when you
come into the classroom. I realize that some students prefer to take notes on a laptop, but
previous experience proves that the temptation to use the computer or phone for other
purposes is too great, and this becomes a distraction not just for you, but for your
classmates and me! If anyone is found texting, web surfing, emailing or otherwise
engaged in electronic correspondence during class time, you will be asked to stop, and
your final grade will be lowered for each infraction.
The same professor stated on another syllabus,
All cell phones, tablets, laptops, and other digital technology must be put away when you
come into the classroom. We will be fully present for each other so we can learn from
each other.
The other professor wrote,
I would ask that you only use your electronic devices during class for class purposes only
(or step outside of class if there is some type of emergency or other need to use them).
After examining all the professors’ syllabi, they demonstrated a variety of classroom
policies and expectations; however, a common theme was professionalism. Professors A, B, C, E
called it professionalism and participation, and with Professor C, professionalism was 10% of the
grade. Although Professor D called it “engagement,” professionalism was highlighted and
65

measured by a grading rubric. Professor F and H called it classroom expectations. Two of the
professors, Professors F and G, were direct about no electronics in the classroom. Professor G
was the most precise in regards to no electronic devices. Under policies and expectations, most
participants’ syllabi addressed professionalism or “learning to be a professional” as a form of
measurement tied to their grade. “Be attentive” or “be present” were commonly used in their
syllabi as well as reminders to be respectful to others, minimize disruptions, and actively
participate in the classroom. Although most of the syllabi were for remote learning, most did not
have specific instructions about using their PEDs for class purposes only. Professors believe that
with this generation of undergraduate students (Gen Z), professors must “call them out” to
redirect them when they are cyberloafing.
Summary of Findings
All professors stated that students need incentives to focus their attention on learning in
order to manage the cyberloafing behavior. Classroom management has been effective when
classroom conduct or professionalism rules are enforced. When students are on their devices,
most participants “call them out,” yet they know they must handle these students with care, such
as pulling them aside after class. Most of the female professors asserted that they have issues
with students questioning or challenging authority, with one female professor stating, “I need
thicker skin.” Two professors assert that they do not want to police the students. Five out of the
eight professors believe there is a need to incorporate a standardized “no mobile phone” policy.
Most believe laptops are an issue, although they are required for some business courses. A
couple of professors proposed the idea of a school-issued PED. The classroom environment was
also an important consideration. Most participants become distracted when students are on the
phone, as it “disrupts my train of thought.” Most believe that a flat single-level traditional
66

classroom design supports collaboration but only if the class size is limited to approximately 25
students. Although two professors indicated that a tiered multi-level room works for a class size
of 40. A single-level room for fewer than 35 students is the most favorable layout. The ideal
class size is 20 to 25. Academic integrity is an issue with PEDs in the classroom. One professor
stated that in business, it is open-source, so students should be accustomed to searching online
for information. Professors understand that the use of PEDs can be an advantage. One professor
stated that students “thank me for collecting phones” in the classroom. The two younger
professors (age range 35 to 42) put trust in the students and are not as strict as the older
professors. Professor E said, “I think I am more open to technology than those who are more
senior. So, my management style is more open and flexible.”
Although all professors mentioned what worked for them in managing cyberloafing
behavior in the classroom, younger professors provided students more autonomy or flexibility
with their policy. All are generally against using mobile phones in the classroom. Professor F
said he “discourages it.”
Table 8 presents select responses. Although the data reflect various tactics used to
manage the cyberloafing behavior, the data revealed challenges with creating consistency or
standardization with classroom policies within the classroom environment. As Burke (2004)
stated, inconsistencies in undergraduate classroom policies lead to administrative challenges at
market-driven universities. The data also revealed common themes from female professors about
managing cyberloafing in the classroom.

67

Table 8
Professors’ Highlighted Responses on Female Faculty
Professor Response
A “There is gender variability. An older male can lock the door.”
B “If it were a male figure, they would have an easier time. It’s trickier
for junior faculty, female faculty.”
C “Male [students] have a hard time seeing women as authority.” Higher
expectations for younger and women. Judged harder than male
counterparts.
E Biggest demographic factor is age and trying not to be the dinosaur in the
room...I don't relish on confrontations. If it's male, less awkward.
G “The older male professor can be strict.”
H My style [as a male] would not work as a woman; I have an authoritarian
style.”

Next, Chapter Five discusses the recommendations, implementation, and evaluation
based on the results from the eight interviews. The Logic model was utilized for implementation
and evaluation (Kellogg Foundation, 2004).
68

Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations
This chapter provides recommendations for practice based on data analysis. The
following are three recommendations for both undergraduate business school professors and
students. The first is to implement a training program that includes communication, enforcement,
and ongoing training. Communication, enforcement, and training would be tailored to both
professors and students. The second recommendation is to create a standardized technology
policy to ensure a clear and consistent message throughout all syllabi. The third recommendation
is to issue laptops at new student orientation.
Recommendations for Practice
Considering the prevalence of PED usage in the classroom, the purpose of this study was
to understand, through the lens of professors, how cyberloafing impacts undergraduate business
school students’ learning behavior in the classroom and professors’ best practices related to
managing the cyberloafing behavior. With a better understanding of this behavior, professors can
manage, improve, and provide an optimal learning environment for undergraduate business
school students where PEDs are prevalent in the classroom. Evidence suggests that the more
students engage in off-task behavior using their PEDs, the less engaged they are in learning
(Berdik, 2018). The more students multitask, or engage in task switching, the lower their grades
(Berdik, 2018). The study considered the different types of learners, such as students with
learning disabilities. Furthermore, the study explored how various types of business professors
manage these effects.
Discussion of Findings
The qualitative research findings emerged through the theoretical framework, social
cognitive theory, based on faculty observations about cyberloafing behavior in the classroom.
69

Faculty interviews were conducted over a year after the global pandemic started, at the end of the
semester, focused on their in person classroom experiences and best practices. Based on
findings, mobile phone use is a distraction to both the students and professors. The multiple
themes emerged from the study were the value of professionalism, student preparation or
readiness, consistencies or standardizations in classroom policies regarding PED usage. First, all
faculty addressed professionalism or respect in their classroom policy. Four of the eight
professors who addressed professionalism mentioned them in their interviews. The majority of
professors, and all tenured business professors, agreed there should be a standardized “no mobile
phone policy” in the classroom. Responses in regards to laptops in the classroom were mixed. A
challenge for professors who teach courses with laptops as a requirement is keeping students on
task. Furthermore, all professors except two believe that taking notes by computer is not
beneficial.
With the 2020 global pandemic faculty are in a continuous state of imbalance, seeking
solutions to successfully manage cyberloafing behavior and the negative effects of PED usage in
the undergraduate business school classroom. Through faculty’s observations, the study provided
awareness of these effects, how and why these effects occur, and what professors can do about
managing them. An overview of the recommendations provides a comprehensive training
program, creates a standardized “no mobile phone policy,” and issues university laptops to
business students for specific business courses.
Recommendations
The first recommendation is to provide a comprehensive training program along with
guidance on how to execute these recommendations, with specialty training for all students in the
business school. Professors will also receive specialty training, which will be communicated
70

through the policies and procedures manual and through online training offered through the
human resources department. The second recommendation is to provide a standardized “no
mobile phone policy” in the university’s undergraduate school of business that is implemented
and enforced. The third recommendation is to issue university-owned laptops for business school
students whose courses require them as well as provide them specialized training for these
courses. The training for students supports their learning and increases professors’ instructional
time, as they are not trouble-shooting for the courses that require laptops.
Recommendation 1: Comprehensive Training Program
Recommendation 1 is to develop a comprehensive training program directed at both
undergraduate business school professors and students on how to manage off-task behavior in
the classroom with standardized policies and procedures so that there is consistency in the
message. With only student evaluations, no training, improvements, or interventions, the quality
of instruction and the students’ educational experience fall short (Marsh, 2012). Due to the
negative effects of PEDs, evidence suggests that students’ GPAs decline when they multi-task in
the classroom (Bellur et al., 2015). Therefore, professors should also take that into consideration.
Research suggests that guidelines should be incorporated in the course syllabus, student
handbook, information technology, and training services (Bellur et al., 2015).
There will be consistency and key terms with definitions in the message to minimize
ambiguity. This training program will be created specifically for the target audiences: the
stakeholder groups, the professors, and the students. The training program would be
implemented through the business school after faculty complete the training with the human
resources department. The training program can help professors identify and implement solutions
that work best for their classrooms. Based on SCT and findings, information about the classroom
71

environment should also be considered. As both findings and data suggest, students seated in the
back of the classroom most likely will engage in cyberloafing behavior (Aaron & Lipton, 2018;
Wammes et al., 2019). Professors should consider management techniques, such as moving
students around the classroom. Faculty and staff must be trained about digital natives, as
evidence suggests they are not fully prepared to use PEDs for academic purposes (Kirschner &
van Merrienboer, 2013). They should be aware that digital natives do not have the ability to
multitask or task-switch (Kirschner & van Merrienboer, 2013). As for students, the training will
be required during new student orientation.
New and exchange students will be trained on classroom civility, including why
netiquette is important so that it is standardized. The center for students with disabilities will also
offer specialty training. Continuous training for students can also be included as part of a
wellness checkpoint. As stated in the findings as well as in the research, female instructors,
specifically women of color, face issues with classroom incivility more than male instructors
(Alberts et al., 2010; Knepp, 2012). Training on classroom civility, including netiquette, will be
implemented by the human resources staff for the professors and through a business
communications course designed for business students. Findings suggest we should give students
some autonomy, as they are adults. However, studies show cyberloafing behavior is a distraction
to others (Aaron & Lipton, 2018). In addition, research also indicates that professors are
distracted by the cyberloafing behavior. According to Sana et al. (2013), peers who were not on a
device but were sitting next to someone who was cyberloafing had diminished test performance.
Therefore, the training should emphasize the negative effects of cyberloafing as a distraction to
peers that can impact their learning and can decrease teacher effectiveness.

72

Recommendation 2: Standardized Technology Policy
Recommendation 2 is a standardized classroom technology policy. McCoy (2018)
suggested 80% of students engage in cyberloafing in the classroom. These students believe
cyberloafing is not a good practice, but there are no good classroom policies (Berry & Westfall,
2015). Based on the findings, five of the professors would support a standardized no-mobile-
phone policy. Stephens and Pantoja (2016) suggested policies do help manage the cyberloafing
activity. Other research suggests that both professors and administrators should take into account
the benefits of a classroom policy that addresses evidence-based data regarding the negative
effects of cyberloafing in the classroom (Bellur et al., 2015). Based on the findings that the use
of PEDs is considered “the way the world works,” a recommendation is to incorporate strategies
to help students self-regulate to support metacognition by incorporating technology breaks in
their environment (Bellur et al., 2015).
In regards to classroom no-electronic-devices policies, students who were in classrooms
with strict policies scored higher on tests (70%) than those with lesser restrictive policies (Aaron
& Lipton, 2018). Based on Burke’s (2004) work, these policies teach students accountability.
The standardized policy teaches students accountability, and the policy would minimize
professors from “being the heavy,” “policing,” or cluttering the syllabus. Communicating and
consistent messages lead to effective communication (Kellogg Foundation, 2004). Keeping it
simple supports both students’ and professors’ self-regulation. Clear and consistent
communication helps students learn to self-regulate so they will be prepared by the time they are
in the upper-division courses.

73

Recommendation 3: Issue University-Owned Laptops
Recommendation 3 is to issue university-owned laptops, set up with Blackboard and
Respondus Lockdown Browser with a camera and/or other software, such as Qualtrics or SPSS,
relevant to their business courses. The standardized laptops would include training designed for
business students and in alignment with Recommendations 1 and 2. In that way, students will not
be compelled to cyberloaf on a university-issued laptop for courses that require a laptop.
According to McCoy (2020), 38.8% of students believed that distracting others was a
disadvantage. Issuing university-owned laptops would prevent students from cyberloafing and,
as a result, distracting others. According to Sana et al. (2013), the use of laptops in the classroom
for non-task-related purposes impacted learning. In addition, using them for non-task-related
purposes can be a distraction to both the user and their peers (Dykstra et al., 2013). For example,
one study mentioned that 43% of students who used laptops for non-task-related purposes did not
follow instructions and had lower academic performance than their peers who did not use laptops
(Sana et al., 2013). Issuing the laptops would be managed by the university’s undergraduate
school of business through its IT department.
Integrated Recommendations
An evaluation approach suitable for implementing these recommendations is the logic
model, also referred to as the theory program (Kellogg Foundation, 2004). The logic model
depicts what is being evaluated and entails input, which involves resources, activities, or
processes followed by output or product and short-term outcomes and long-term impact (Patton,
2017). The approach is fairly straightforward and examines what information or data are needed
before passing through the input or resources stage. In addition, the linkages are logical and
74

reasonable. The logic model does not need to be linear and can work with social cognitive
theory.
Another important consideration is how to incorporate equity into evaluation (Charles et
al., 2019). Systematic inquiry, integrity, and competence should be addressed (AEA, 2018).
Other important considerations when examining outputs produced as a result of the activity are
training or attendance. Outputs can be measured in terms of what benefits, changes, and
knowledge were gained. It is also important to consider formative and summative evaluations.
With formative evaluation, improvements and adjustments can be made as an effort is underway,
which is more proactive versus focusing on something more summative or a reactive approach.
The program logic model is an action-oriented tool of program planning and evaluation
(Kellogg Foundation, 2004). It provides a visual roadmap of the inner workings of the
organization and helps participants or stakeholders stay on track (Kellogg Foundation, 2004).
The visual of the program logic model reflects the linkages, short-term and long-term outcomes,
program activities or processes, and the theoretical assumptions of the program (Kellogg
Foundation, 2004). The logic model has two major benefits that serve as a roadmap for
successful implementation (Kellogg Foundation, 2004). First, it can increase community
participation, involving both internal and external stakeholders. Stakeholders are internal
stakeholders such as students, administrators, faculty, and staff and external stakeholders such as
alumni, employers, and business leaders. Secondly, the model provides an effective mode of
communication for a diverse group of stakeholders. Diverse groups entail international students
or faculty, students or faculty with disabilities, varying levels of experience, knowledge, and
worldviews (Kellogg Foundation, 2004). Above all, visuals can serve as a strong communication
tool for diverse groups.
75

Figure 3
Logic Model Development Program Planning

With the logic model aligned with the mission and goals of an undergraduate business
school at a small university, there is a connection between planned work and intended results
(Kellogg Foundation, 2004). The input, also referred to as resources, is the planned work,
including human, financial, organizational, and community resources directly related to doing
the work (Kellogg Foundation, 2004). The activities or processes consist of the planned actions
or programs that take place.
Input and Resources
In regards to an undergraduate business school at a small to medium-sized private
university, the input/resources are administration and staff, business professors, and the business
76

school’s information and technology (IT) department. The administration and staff support is in
alignment with human resources. The IT department issues the laptop computer along with the
training. The disability center will provide support for both students and professors. Professors
will receive ongoing training by the center for teaching. Above all, there will be an
organizational structure in place.
Activities and Processes
Activities are what the program does with the resources (Kellogg Foundation, 2004).
Activities are the processes, tools, events, technology, and actions that are intentionally part of
program implementation. These interventions bring about the intended program changes or
results. The activities and processes for the undergraduate business school in a small university
are the training, business communications course, the program activities or interventions, and the
standardized language in the syllabus. Training begins with student and faculty orientation. The
administration, including the department chairs, agree on standardized language in the syllabus.
A training module with evidence-based data about cyberloafing in the classroom will be included
as a part of the training program. Both part-time and full-time faculty receive instructional
techniques for the professors in the orientation. The communication will be adapted for the target
audience. Both the students and the professors will learn in a similar language, meaning terms,
phrases, and symbols. As a reinforcement, a required business communications course will
incorporate part of the training.
The Output or Product
The output, which is also referred to as the product, involves short-term and long-term
outcomes. The intended work (1–3 years) and long term (4–5 years; Kellogg Foundation, 2004).
The outputs are the following:
77

● Organizational goals are met.
● Standards are in place.
● Trained students/faculty.
● Students have minimized their cyberloafing behavior.
● Prepared students; more substantive discussions; socialization.
● Enhanced learning environment.
● Peers are not distracted by others' cyberloafing behavior in the classroom.
● Professors are not distracted by students' cyberloafing behavior.
● Academic dishonesty managed.
Impact
Impact is the fundamental intended or unintended change occurring in organizations,
communities, or systems as a result of program activities within seven to 10 years (Kellogg
Foundation, 2004). The impact is a high-performing classroom environment involving fully
prepared students and engagement, improved rankings, and student retention. Based on the logic
model, Table 9 presents an overview of the logic model describing the focus area and indicators.

78

Table 9
Indicators
Focus Area Indicators
Influential Factors

Resources

Activities

Outputs

Outcomes & Impacts
Organization’s culture, loyalty of stakeholders to culture

Tools to simplify and standardize the

Training, workshops, communication

Trained students and faculty

High performance; sustainable organization;
student retention; improved rankings

Recommendations for Future Research
It is important to teach professors the importance of classroom management when it
comes to PEDs. Some do not realize that students are not paying attention or note the importance
of standardized PEDs, particularly for students or faculty members with disabilities. This study
focused on a small private university. There needs to be further research on managing
cyberloafing in a business school classroom in a large university. In addition, further studies
should consider teaching professors the importance of management when it comes to PEDs in
the classroom.
Further research is needed on whether there is a trend of students realizing that they are
unable to multitask or task-switch. Findings suggest that older professors understand there is a
problem, that students should not be allowed to use mobile phones in the classroom, and that
students are unable to multi-task or task-switch. However, younger professors believe that
students should have flexibility and the freedom to use the PEDs in the classroom. Further
79

research is needed about younger professors’ beliefs that multi-tasking or task switching can
impact learning. As future business leaders, further research is needed about how undergraduate
business students can learn effective habits using PEDs in the workplace.
Conclusion
With the 2020 global pandemic and now that students are going back to the classroom in
person, faculty are continuously seeking solutions to successfully manage cyberloafing and the
negative effects of PED usage in the undergraduate business school classroom. Cyberloafing
negatively affects student’s learning and might impair their learning. Evidence suggests that
task-switching or multitasking using PEDs leads to similar behavior beyond graduation and into
the workforce (Al Abbasi, 2018). Corgnet et al. (2015) suggested that cyberloafing behavior in
the workplace leads to poor productivity and a loss of millions of dollars for corporations.
Ultimately, the students’ ability to manage the off-task behavior using PEDs can potentially lead
to effective working professionals and leaders of society. Implementing these recommendations
will help students self-regulate, promote classroom civility, and overall create a focused, high-
performing classroom environment for both the students and the professors.

80

References
Aaron, L. S., & Lipton, T. (2018). Digital distraction: Shedding light on the 21
st
-Century college
classroom. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 46(3), 363-378.
American Evaluation Association. (2018). Guiding principles for evaluators.
http://www.eval.org/p/cm/ld/fid=51
Akbulut, Y., Dursun, O. O., Donmez, O., & Sahin, Y. L. (2016). In search of a measure to
investigate cyberloafing in educational settings. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 616-
625. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.11.002
Akgün, F. (2020). Investigation of high school Students’ cyberloafing behaviors in classes.
Education & Science / Egitim ve Bilim, 45(201), 79–108. https://doi-
org.sandiego.idm.oclc.org/10.15390/EB.2019.8419
Al Abbasi, H. (2018). Organizational Information Security: Strategies to Minimize Workplace
Cyberloafing for Increased Productivity [Unpublished doctoral dissertation], Walden
University.
Alberts, H. C., Hazen, H. D., & Theobald, R. B. (2010). Classroom incivilities: The challenge of
interactions between college students and instructors in the US. Journal of Geography in
Higher Education, 34:3, 439–462, DOI: 10.1080/03098260903502679
Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., & Norman, M. K. (2010). How
learning works. Jossey-Bass.
Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 50, 248–287.
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 9, 75–78. https://doi.org10.1111/1467-8721.00064
81

Bandura, A. (2005). The evolution of social cognitive theory. In K. G. Smith & M. A. Hitt
(Eds.), Great minds in management (pp. 9–35). Oxford University.
Bellur, S., Nowak, K., & Hull, K. (2015). Make it our time: In class multitaskers have lower
academic performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 53- 70.
Berdik, C. (2018). Dealing with Digital Distraction. Education Digest, 84(1), 40–45.
Berry, M. J., & Westfall, A. (2015). Dial D for distraction: The making and breaking of cell
phone policies in the college classroom. College Teaching, 63(2), 62–71, DOI:
10.1080/87567555.2015.1005040
Bingham, T., & Nix, S. J. (2010). Women Faculty in Higher Education: A Case Study on Gender
Bias. Forum on Public Policy Online. 2010(2).
Burke, J. C. (2004). Achieving accountability in higher education: Balancing public, academic,
and market demands. In J. C. Burke (Ed.), The many faces of accountability (pp. 1–24).
Jossey-Bass.
Charles, T. A., Locke, K., & Sood, D. (2019). Equity and evaluation: Models of how equity can
and does impact evaluation. TCC Group.
https://www.tccgrp.com/wpcontent/uploads/EquityPanel_Booklet_Final.pdf
Cheong, P. H., Shuter, R., & Suwinyattichaiporn, T. (2016). Managing student digital
distractions and hyperconnectivity: communication strategies and challenges for
professorial authority. Communication Education, 65(3), 272–289. https://doi-
org.sandiego.idm.oclc.org/10.1080/03634523.2016.1159317
Cho, V., & Littenberg-Tobias, J. (2016). Digital device and teaching the whole student:
developing and validating an instrument to measure educators’ attitudes and beliefs
82

Educational Technology Research & Development, 64(4), 643–659. https://doi-
org.sandiego.idm.oclc.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9441-x
Corgnet, B., Hernán-González, R., & McCarter, M. (2015). The Role of the Decision-Making
Regime on Cooperation in a Workgroup Social Dilemma: An Examination of
Cyberloafing. Games, 6 (4): 588 DOI: 10.3390/g6040588
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Information Age Publishing.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Snyder, J. (2015). Meaningful learning in a new paradigm for
educational accountability: An introduction. Education Policy Analysis Archives.
Dougherty, K., & DeDoyne, J. (2020). Snapchat, Instagram and other unexpected guests in class.
Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2020/07/22/snapchat-
instagram-and-other-unexpected-guests-college-classroom-opinion
Duke, N. K., & Martin, N. M. (2011). Ten things every literacy educator should know about
research. The Reading Teacher, 65(1), 9-22.
Dursun, O. O., Donmez, O., & Akbulut, Y. (2018). Predictors of Cyberloafing among Preservice
Information Technology Teachers. Contemporary Educational Technology, 9(1), 22–41.
Dykstra, D. E., Tracy, D. L., & Wergin, R. (2013). An empirical look at business students’
attitudes towards laptop computers in the classroom. Academic Journal of Learning in
Higher Education, 9(2), 39–47.
Firestone, W. A., & Shipps, D. (2005). How do leaders interpret conflicting accountabilities to
improve student learning? In W. A. Firestone & C. Riehl (Eds.), A new agenda for
research in educational leadership (pp. 81–91). Teachers College Press.
83

Flanigan, A. E., & Kiewra, K. A. (2018). What college instructors can do about student cyber-
slacking. Educational Psychology Review, 30(2), 585–597.
Fried, C. (2008). In class laptop use and its effects on student learning. Computers & Education,
50(3), 906-914.
Gazzaley, A., & Rosen, L. D. (2016). The distracted mind: Ancient brains in a high-tech world.
MIT press.
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.). Pearson.
Hart Barnett, J. E. (2017). Helping students with ADHD in the age of digital distraction. Physical
Disabilities: Education and Related Services, 36(2), 1–7.
Junco, R., & Cotten, S. (2012). No A 4 U: The relationship between multitasking and
academic performance. Computers & Education, 59(2), 505–514.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.12.023
Kellogg Foundation. (2004). Using logic models to bring together planning, evaluation, and
Action: Logic model development guide.
https://www.aacu.org/sites/default/files/LogicModel.pdf
Kirscher, P. A. & van Merrienboer, J. G. (2013). Do Learners really know what’s best? Urban
legends in education. Educational Psychologist, 48, 169–183.
doi:10.1080/00461520.2013.804395
Knepp, K. A. F. (2012). Understanding Student and Faculty Incivility in Higher Education.
Journal of Effective Teaching, 12(1), 33–46.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2013). Critical race theory—What it is not!. In M. Lynn & Dixson, A. D.
(Eds.), Handbook of critical race theory in education (pp. 37–47). Routledge.
84

Lilienfeld, S. (2017). Microaggressions. Perspectives on Psychological Science: A Journal of the
Association for Psychological Science, 12(1), 138–169.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616659391
Lim, V. K. G., & Chen, D. J. Q. (2012). Cyberloafing at the workplace: gain or drain on work?
Behaviour & Information Technology, 31(4), 343–353.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01449290903353054
Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Prentice-
Hall.
Market Business News. https://marketbusinessnews.com/financial-glossary/business-
school/
Marsh, J. A. (2012). Interventions promoting educators’ use of data: Research insights and gaps.
Teachers College Record, 114(11), 1–48.
McCoy, B. (2020). Gen Z and digital distractions in the classroom: Student classroom use of
digital devices for non-class related purposes. Journal of Media Education, 11(2), 5-23.
Retrieved from https://en.calameo.com/read/0000917898a07ac2096e4
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Morrissette, P. J. (2001). Reducing incivility in the university/college classroom. International
Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning, 5, 1–12.
Market Business News. https://marketbusinessnews.com/financial-glossary/business-school/
85

Naciye Güliz Uğur, & Tuğba Koç. (2015). mobile phones as distracting tools in the Classroom:
college students perspective. Alphanumeric Journal, (2), 57. https://doi-
org.sandiego.idm.oclc.org/10.17093/aj.2015.3.2.5000145549
Nath, R., Chen, L., & Muyingi, H. N. (2015). An empirical study of the factors that influence in-
class digital distraction among university students: A U.S.–Namibia cross-cultural study.
Information Resources Management Journal, 28(4), 1–18. https://doi-
org.sandiego.idm.oclc.org/10.4018/IRMJ.2015100101
Nordstrom, C. R., Bartels, L. K., & Bucy, J. (2016) Predicting and curbing classroom incivility
in higher education, Coll Stud J.
Park, E. L., Choi, B. K. (2014) Transformation of classroom spaces: traditional versus active
learning classroom in colleges. High Educ 68, 749–771. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-
014-9742-0
Parry, D. A., le Roux, D. B., & Cornelissen, L. A. (2020). Managing in-lecture media use: the
feasibility and value of a split-class policy. Journal of Computing in Higher Education,
32(2), 261–281.
Patton, M. (2017). Evaluation flashcards: Embedding evaluative thinking in organizational
culture. Otto Bremer Trust. https://ottobremer.org/news_stories/evaluation-flash-cards/
Ravizza, S., Hambrick, D., & Fenn, K. (2014). Non-academic internet use in the classroom is
negatively related to classroom learning regardless of intellectual ability. Computers &
Education, 78(C), 109–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.05.007
Rosen, L., Lim, A., Carrier, M., & Cheever, N. (2011). An empirical examination of the
educational implication of text message-induced task switching in the classroom:
86

Educational implications and strategies to enhance learning. California State University,
Dominguez Hills.
Sana, F., Weston, T., & Cepeda, N. (2013). Laptop multitasking hinders classroom learning for
both users and nearby peers. Computers & Education, 62.
Seli, H., & Dembo, M. (2019). Motivation and learning strategies for college success: A focus
on self-regulated learning (6th ed.). Taylor & Francis.
Seemiller, C. (2017). Curbing digital distractions in the classroom. Contemporary Educational
Technology, 8(3), 214–231.
Schwieger, D., & Ludwig, C. (2018). Reaching and retaining the next generation: Adapting to
expectations to Gen Z in the classroom. Information Systems Education Journal, 16(3).
Soh, P. C.-H., Koay, K. Y., & Lim, V. K. (2018). Understanding cyberloafing by students
through the lens of an extended theory of planned behavior. First Monday, 23(6).
https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v23i6.7837
Stephens, K. K., & Pantoja, G. E. (2016). Mobile devices in the classroom: Learning motivations
predict specific types of multicommunicating behaviors, Communication Education,
65:4, 463-479.
“Students on Incivility in the Classroom.” (2011). Teaching Professor, 25(1), 4. Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com.sandiego.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=
57278014&site=eds-live&scope=site
Taneja, A., Fiore, V., & Fischer, B. (2015). Cyber-slacking in the classroom: Potential for digital
distraction in the new age. Computers & Education, 82, 141-151.
https://doi.org./10.1016/j.compedu.2014.11.009
87

Tangney, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Boone, A. L. (2004). High selfcontrol predicts good
adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. Journal of
personality, 72(2), 271-324. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-3506.2004.00263.x
United States. Federal Aviation Administration. (2017). Advisory circular checklist and status of
other FAA publications. U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration.
USCLibraries.
https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide/limitations.
Varol, F. (2019). Cyberloafing in higher education: Reasons and suggestions from students’
perspectives. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 24(1), 129–142.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-017-9340-1
Wammes, J., Ralph, B., Mills, C., Bosch, N., Duncan, T., & Smilek, D. (2019). Disengagement
during lectures: Media multitasking and mind wandering in university classrooms.
Computers & Education, 132, 76–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.12.007
Wei, Fang-Yi & Wang, Y. & Klausner, Michael. (2012). Rethinking college students' self-
regulation and sustained attention: Does text messaging during class influence cognitive
learning? Communication Education, 61. 10.1080/03634523.2012.672755.
Wood, E., Zivcakova, L., Gentile, P., Archer, K., De Pasquale, D., & Nosko, A. (2012).
Examining the impact of off-task multi-tasking with technology on real-time classroom
learning, Computers & Education, 58(1), 365–374.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.08.029.
Wurst, C., Smarkola, C., & Gaffney, M. (2008). Ubiquitous laptop usage in higher education:
Effects on student achievement, student satisfaction, and constructivist measures in
88

honors and traditional classrooms, Computers & Education,Volume 51, Issue 4,Pages
1766-1783, ISSN 0360-1315, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.05.006.

89

Appendix A: Interview Protocol
Instructions: There are 12 interview questions, which include an introduction to the interview,
conclusion to the interview, and any transition language before and after the questions.

Respondent Type 1: Current professor in the undergraduate business school or communications
Introduction to the Interview:
Explain research purpose and that interview is confidential, responses are anonymous, that the
responses will be deleted. Researcher will allow respondents to read the research purpose, ask
questions and sign, document (or agree) based on what was stated for effective communication
and agreement. Furthermore, regarding the introduction and conclusion, researcher will ask
professors to introduce themselves and provide closing statement(s). And finally, researcher will
request syllabi from respondents prior to and after the interview.
The research purpose:
Considering the prevalence of Personal Electronic Device (PED) usage in the college classroom
for non-task purposes, (cyberloafing) and how it impacts the learning, the purpose of this study is
to gain a better understanding of undergraduate business school student’s learning behavior in
the classroom, how that would have an impact and in the classroom. The study is seeking how
professors effectively manage or improve the learning environment for undergraduate business
school students, where cyberloafing is prevalent in the classroom. In addition, the study is
seeking to understand how the existing classroom environment is a distraction from learning.
Being present is a significant part of the communication and learning process, the study is trying
to understand how undergraduate business students can be truly being present in the classroom.
90

If the respondent does not have strong issues with it, researcher will plan to ask why and refer
back to the research purpose and questions, what researcher is looking for is how they (and their
peers) manage the behavior in the classroom.

For icebreaker: Explain your teaching experience and motivated you to go into teaching? How
was last year’s teaching experience when the Covid-19 pandemic happened, shifting to distance
learning? Tell me about your experience. How was your teaching experience in the classroom
since the pandemic happened?

Demographics: Ask the respondent to state their title/rank/position, and demographics such as
gender, race, nationality, and age range.

91

Appendix B: Theoretical Framework Alignment Matrix (Qualitative)
Research question Theoretical framework Data instrument questions
How does the faculty
address and manage the
cyberloafing in the
undergraduate business
school’s classroom?

Social cognitive theory
(Bandura, 2000)

Interview Questions: 7-12
What is the faculty’s
understanding about
students’ motivation to
cyberloaf in the college
classroom?

Social cognitive theory
(Bandura, 2000)

Interview Questions: 1, 3-6
How does faculty
incorporate techniques to
help self-regulate the
cyberloafing behavior?

Social cognitive theory
(Bandura, 2000)

Interview Questions: 1-12

92

Appendix C: Interview Questions
Interview questions
Potential
probes
RQ
addressed Key concept addressed
Q Type
(Patton)
Now tell me about
your classroom
experience, utilizing
PEDs, before Covid-
19?

What was that
like?
Surroundin
gs? What
worked,
didn’t
work?

RQ1 Digital distraction, PED
Digital natives
Multitasking
Digital distraction
Cyber-loafing
Cyber-slacking
Classroom incivility
Classroom management

Feelings,
behaviors
,
attitudes,
opinions
Explain your
classroom policy in
regards to use of
PEDs (personal
electronic devices).

All classes?
Types of
classes?
What
worked or
didn’t
work?
RQ1 Classroom incivility
Classroom management

knowledge
Mobile phone use in
the classroom, are
you for or against it
and why?

All classes?
Types of
classes?
Peers?
RQ1 Digital distraction, PED
Digital natives
Multitasking
Digital distraction
Cyber-loafing
Cyber-slacking
Classroom incivility
Classroom management

Feels,
attitudes,
opinions
Laptop use in the
classroom are you
for or against it and
why?

All classes?
Types of
classes?
Peers?
RQ1 Digital distraction, PED
Digital natives
Multitasking
Digital distraction
Cyber-loafing
Cyber-slacking
Classroom incivility
Classroom management

Feelings,
attitudes,
opinions

93

Interview questions
Potential
probes
RQ
addressed Key concept addressed
Q Type
(Patton)
With electronic
devices/technology
use, any distractions
with you? Explain.

How do you
get
distracted?
RQ2, RQ3 Digital distraction, PED
Digital natives
Multitasking
Digital distraction
Cyber-loafing
Cyber-slacking

Feelings,
attitudes
and
opinions
Explain an ideal
learning
environment
utilizing personal
electronic devices in
the classroom (both
online and in the
physical classroom)?

Can you talk
more about
that?
R1, R2,
R3
Digital distraction, PED
Digital natives
Multitasking
Digital distraction
Cyber-loafing
Cyber-slacking
Classroom incivility
Classroom management
Feelings,
behaviors
Various types of
professors (female,
male, older,
younger): explain
their classroom
management styles
regarding
technology in the
classroom.

Each
professor’s
teaching
style?
R1, R2,
R3
Digital distraction, PED
Digital natives
Multitasking
Digital distraction
Cyber-loafing
Cyber-slacking
Classroom incivility
Classroom management
knowledge
What do you think of a
standardized “no
PEDs” policy?
Can you talk
more about
that?

R1 Digital distraction, PED
Digital natives
Multitasking
Digital distraction
Cyber-loafing
Cyber-slacking
Classroom incivility
Feels,
attitudes,
opinions,
backgrou
nd/experi
ences

94

Interview questions
Potential
probes
RQ
addressed Key concept addressed
Q Type
(Patton)
If you could go back in
time, in regards to
managing
technology in the
classroom, what
would you change?

Why would
you change
(or why
not)?
R1, R2,
R3
Digital distraction, PED
Digital natives
Multitasking
Digital distraction
Cyber-loafing
Cyber-slacking
Classroom incivility
Classroom management
Feelings,
attitudes,
opinions,
backgrou
nd/experi
ences
If you could change
anything in your
classroom
experience, what
would it be?

Why or why
not?
R1, R2,
R3
Digital distraction, PED
Digital natives
Multitasking
Digital distraction
Cyber-loafing
Cyber-slacking
Classroom incivility
Classroom management
Feelings,
attitudes,
opinions,
backgrou
nd/experi
ences
What would be the
ideal classroom
policy in your
opinion?

Why or why
not?
R1 Digital distraction, PED
Digital natives
Multitasking
Digital distraction
Cyber-loafing
Cyber-slacking
Classroom incivility
Classroom management
Feelings,
attitudes,
opinions
Regarding those with
disabilities, in your
experience how did
you handle PEDs in
the classroom?
Potential
solutions?
R1, R3 Digital distraction, PED
Digital natives
Multitasking
Digital distraction
Cyber-loafing
Cyber-slacking
Classroom management
Feelings,
attitudes,
opinions,
knowledge

95

Appendix D: Word Cloud

96

Appendix E: Information Sheet for Exempt Research
STUDY TITLE: Cyberloafing in the College Classroom

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Judith Parker, MBA

FACULTY ADVISOR: Patricia Tobey, PhD

You are invited to participate in a research study. Your participation is voluntary. This document
explains information about this study. You should ask questions about anything that is unclear to
you.

PURPOSE
The purpose of this study is is to understand the undergraduate business school student’s
cyberloafing behavior in the classroom. By having a better understanding of this behavior,
professors can manage, improve, and provide an optimal learning environment for undergraduate
business school students, where PEDs are prevalent in the classroom. With the 2020 global
pandemic, we hope to learn how faculty can successfully manage the negative effects of PED
usage in the undergraduate business school classroom.
You are invited as a possible participant because you are a faculty member with at least 5 years
of experience in either the business school or communications.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
The materials will be used for recruitment will be the following: A request via email sent to the
participants regarding the research purpose and explanation of the research study to the business
school, to be communicated to the marketing chairperson, the dean or associate dean of the
business school and the dean of student affairs. There will be follow up communication primarily
by email. In order to receive permission to recruit professors, administration specifically the
chairperson and associate dean of the business school will be initially contacted. There will be
consistency in the message with all communication. As for credibility, candidates will be
purposely selected for the study, key stakeholders, to help select the appropriate number of
participants, refine the research problem and questions in alignment with the purpose (Creswell
& Creswell, 2018). Efforts will be made to maintain the same group of participants, and there
will be a series of interviews to support the credibility and accuracy of the study (Creswell &
Creswell 2018). To add credibility, the research will be conducted at an undergraduate business
school directly aligned with the problem of practice and research purpose.

If you decide to take part, you will be asked to be a part of semi-structured interviews. The semi-
structured interviews will be in a series, each 45-60 minutes long, will take place via Zoom
conference, recorded locally, most likely at the end of the semester, so there’s a summative,
reflection.

97

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION

There is no compensation for participation.

CONFIDENTIALITY
The members of the research team, and the University of Southern California Institutional
Review Board (IRB) may access the data. The IRB reviews and monitors research studies to
protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.

When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences.

No identifiable information will be used. All names will be anonymous.

All interviews will be recorded locally and then deleted for anonymity a month after the
dissertation is published. The recordings is available for the respondent to review and stored
locally on computer. Pseudonyms will be given. For transferability, data analysis from
interviews included examining word frequencies and keyword coding, to support and
substantiate rich, useful data (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
For confirmability, an excel spreadsheet and audit trail will be directed back to the raw data of
respondents’ recordings and transcripts (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions about this study, please contact Judith Parker, judyp@usc.edu and
Patricia Tobey, tobey@usc.edu

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, please contact the
University of Southern California Institutional Review Board at (323) 442-0114 or email
irb@usc.edu.

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Adolescent mental health services in Nevada: assessing the perspectives of families

PDF

Impact of tenure on the professional motivation of civil servants

PDF

Teacher efficacy and classroom management in the primary setting

PDF

School-based support for students with ADHD in general education classrooms

PDF

An exploratory study on flipped learning and the use of self-regulation amongst undergraduate engineering students

PDF

Incorporating social and emotional learning in higher education: a promising practices based development of authentic leadership

PDF

Influences on the use of restorative practices in a United Kingdom junior school: an evaluation study

PDF

Leadership readiness: evaluating the effectiveness for developing managers as coaches

PDF

Manager leadership skills in the context of a new business strategy initiative: an evaluative study

PDF

Teachers' experiences implementing social and emotional learning in the elementary classroom

PDF

Evaluation of early career exploration interventions in a medical school professional development program

PDF

An examination of factors that affect online higher education faculty preparedness

PDF

Improving transfer of leadership training from the classroom to the corporate environment within the private sector in Saudi Arabia

PDF

Faculty’s influence on underrepresented minority (URM) undergraduate retention

PDF

Black male experience on a community college campus: a study on sense of belonging

PDF

Sense of belonging and inclusion among non-Christian students at Jesuit Catholic universities: a qualitative study

PDF

Thriving in collegiate life: can fostering growth mindset move undergraduate students from surviving to thriving?

PDF

Managers’ roles in supporting employee engagement in Jewish nonprofit organizations

PDF

Classroom environment for Common Core

PDF

An evaluative study on implementing customer relationship management software through the perspective of first level managers

Asset Metadata

Creator Parker, Judy Adelizzi (author)

Core Title Managing cyberloafing in the undergraduate business school's classroom

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2021-12

Publication Date 10/08/2021

Defense Date 09/09/2021

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag classroom management,cyberloafing,digital distraction,OAI-PMH Harvest,self-regulation,undergraduate business school

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Tobey, Patricia (committee chair), Haj-Mohamadi, Sourena (committee member), Seli, Helena (committee member)

Creator Email jadelizziparker@yahoo.com,judyp@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC16022039

Unique identifier UC16022039

Legacy Identifier etd-ParkerJudy-10142

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Parker, Judy Adelizzi

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu