Haga clic aquí para la traducción al español (Google Translate)
Introduction
The debate over the role of mobile phones in education has intensified in recent years, with critics warning of distraction & losses in learning, & defenders emphasising teaching responsibility & digital literacy. Yet rigorous empirical evidence has so far been lacking. A large-scale randomised controlled trial by Sungu et al. (2025), conducted with nearly 17,000 university students across ten higher education institutions in India, provides compelling evidence that in-class phone bans improve academic performance, engagement in learning content, & cultivate better learning environments. These findings not only resolve a contentious policy debate but also make a persuasive case for the adoption of mandatory in-class phone collection or outright bans as a low-cost, equitable, & effective educational intervention.
Improved academic performance
Perhaps the most striking finding is the measurable improvement in student performance. Students in phone-ban classrooms experienced an average increase of 0.086 standard deviations in their grade point average (GPA) in only one semester. This effect size is comparable to the gains typically observed from large-scale curriculum reforms or teacher professional development programs, which generally yield improvements in the range of 0.05-0.20 SD.
Importantly, the benefits are not evenly distributed but disproportionately accrue to typically at-risk groups; lower-performing, first-year, & non-STEM students. These students face the greatest risk of falling behind, & the intervention provides them with a necessary academic lift. Predictably, no significant effects were observed for students with above-median prior achievement, second-year students, or those in STEM fields. This suggests that in-class phone bans function as a powerful tool for advancing educational equity, narrowing performance gaps without imposing costs on higher-performing peers.
Positive student receptivity & self-reinforcement
A frequent concern with restrictive policies is student resistance. However, the trial demonstrates the opposite effect. Students subjected to phone bans became more supportive of such restrictions, perceiving them as beneficial & reporting reduced preferences for unrestricted device access. This positive receptivity points toward a self-reinforcing cycle: as students experience the academic & attentional benefits of phone-free learning, they grow more willing to endorse & sustain these policies. Such attitudinal shifts enhance the long-term feasibility of implementation.
A more focused & attentive classroom environment
Beyond academic outcomes, phone bans reshape the classroom environment in ways that favour teaching & learning. Spot checks conducted by research assistants revealed fewer instances of disruptive chatter & increased teacher engagement. Teachers in phone-free classrooms were observed devoting more attention to educational materials & maintaining student focus, while also reducing their own in-class phone use (lecturers we excluded from the ban). In this sense, the policy creates a reciprocal loop of attentional discipline: student attentiveness encourages teacher engagement, which in turn sustains student focus.
Interestingly, some observers noted that students appeared “more distracted” in phone-ban classrooms; a phenomenon the researchers describe as a distraction paradox. According to their attention allocation model, the removal of phones may heighten sensitivity to less salient classroom stimuli, making distraction more visible even as the most significant source of disruption is removed. Yet students themselves did not report higher levels of distraction, suggesting that the perception may reflect shifting attentional dynamics rather than reduced focus.
Limited spillover effects on well-being
Critics often raise concerns that phone bans may harm student well-being by fuelling anxiety, social disconnection, or fear of missing out (FOMO). The study indeed found a mild increase in FOMO (0.179 SD), but no broader negative impacts were detected. Measures of overall well-being, academic motivation, digital usage outside of class, & experiences of online harassment all remained unchanged. This indicates that the costs of phone bans are minimal, while the benefits are substantial.
A low-cost, equitable policy tool
Unlike costly curricular reforms or large-scale teacher training programs, in-class phone bans require little more than a systematic mechanism for collecting devices at the start of classes. They represent an intervention that is simultaneously affordable, scalable, & effective. Importantly, the policy works in the direction of equity by benefiting those most at risk of academic failure without penalising higher-performing students.
Conclusion
The findings of Sungu et al. (2025) make a persuasive case for phone bans as a tool for enhancing academic performance & student equity. The intervention improves grades, fosters a more positive classroom environment, & builds student support for digital restrictions, all while incurring minimal costs & limited negative spillover effects. In higher education contexts, & potentially even more so in lower grade levels, where attentional regulation skills are less developed, mandatory in-class phone collection offers a promising path forward. As institutions grapple with the challenge of sustaining student attention in a digital age, the evidence is clear: phones belong outside the classroom.
Reference
Sungu, A., Choudhury, P. K., & Bjerre-Nielsen, A. (2025). Removing Phones from Classrooms Improves Academic Performance (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. 5370727). Social Science Research Network. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5370727