Cell Phones Rule Setting

American Secondary Education 40(3) Summer 2012
Cell Phones: Rule-Setting, Rule-Breaking,

and Relationships in Classrooms
Authors
Anita S. Charles, Ph.D., is Director of Teacher Education at Bates College
in Lewiston, Maine.
Abstract
Based on a small qualitative study, this article focuses on understanding the
rules for cell phones and other social networking media in schools, an aspect
of broader research that led to important understandings of teacher-student
negotiations. It considers the rules that schools and teachers make, the rampant breaking of these rules, the self-imposed boundaries that students internalize, and the negotiating of rules based on relationships. Although schools
and teachers set rules that define appropriate behaviors with social digital
networks, it also appears that students and teachers frequently negotiate the
boundaries through relationships founded on trust and respect. Situated
within critical sociocultural theory, my research suggests possible pedagogical
strategies around these issues.
Keywords: adolescent literacy, social networking, cell phones, teacher-student relationship

One of the more difficult rules to negotiate in schools is that of appropriate use of technological devices, particularly mobile devices such as cell
phones, smart phones, and wired mp3 devices. These devices seem to be
a pervasive disruption to the purposes and functioning of classrooms even
though schools are scrambling to implement protocols that address this ever-evolving realm of student activity. This article uses critical sociocultural
theory to discuss cell phones and other social networking media in schools
and to suggest possible pedagogical strategies.
4

Charles Cell Phones: Rule-Setting, Rule-Breaking, and Relationships in Classrooms
Extending Vygotskys construct of the Zone of Proximal Development,

Rogoff (1990, 1995) explained that opportunities for learning are bound
and directed by adults who assign, structure, choose tools and companions
for, and manage those activities. Agency, self-directed action, occurs within
relations of power (Moje & Lewis, 2007), discordant or dissimilar groups of
people (such as, adults and teens) can often work together to find consensus
(Gee, 2005).
In my work, the issue of cell phone use kept creeping unexpectedly into
the conversations, and an exploration of that issue became central to an understanding of how students and teachers establish democratic relationships
of trust and respect within classrooms, often defying or altering institutional
rules that govern social digital media. The study reported here explored the
ways in which adolescents articulate and negotiate interactions with text
across social, academic, print and digital contexts. A subquestion emerged
around how youth and teachers negotiate the protocols around cell phone
usage in the classroom.
Methodology
Throughout the 2008-2009 school year, I worked with seven high school
youths and three English teachers, across three schools. I completed eight
classroom observations and seventeen interviews, ensuring at least two interviews with all ten participants.
Description of Setting and Participants

Riverpark* High School is located in a middle class community (pop:
23,000; median household income: $35,000) in New England. Mr. Scott
was in his fourth year of teaching English, and he ran a traditional teachercentered classroom. Maria, Haley, and Nicholas were high-achieving 10th
grade Riverpark High students who were engaged in a variety of extracurricular activities and had high access to social digital media such as cell
phones, Facebook, and mp3 players. Carrie, another 10th grader, was successful in college-prep classes, had access to social media, and lived in a
modest home with her family. David, the last of the 10th graders from Riverpark, struggled to succeed in school, and had no cell phone, no mp3 player,
and no Internet access outside of school. Toward the end of the school year,
he dropped out of school and transferred to a group home in another town.
Centreville is a slightly bigger town (pop: 35,000) than Riverpark and
is more ethnically and culturally diverse with a lower median income
($29,000). Mrs. Andrews was in her 18th year of teaching English, and
maintained a traditional teacher-centered classroom. Jamal and Jeffrey at5

Cell Phones: Rule-Setting, Rule-Breaking, and Relationships in Classrooms Charles
tended Centreville High. Jamal, a 10th grader and my only non-White African American student, was similar to David, with almost no access outside
of school to social digital media and a student who struggled academically.
Jeffrey, in contrast, was a high-functioning honors and AP 11th grade student,
with ample access to social digital media.
The third teacher observed and interviewed was Ms. Fisk, a quiet woman in her first year of teaching at a private coed day school. She too ran a
traditional teacher-centered classroom.
Findings and Discussion

Although schools set rules that define appropriate behaviors with social
digital networks, it appears that students and teachers frequently negotiate
the boundaries and intersections of these tools and discourses through relationships founded on trust and respect. Findings from the study focus on the
rules that schools and teachers make, the rampant breaking of these rules,
the self-imposed boundaries that students internalize, and the negotiating of
rules based on relationships.
Setting the Rules: The Schools Pretty Strict About It

Because laws regulating mobile social media tend to support highly prohibitive institutional boundaries (Diamantes, 2010; Humble-Thaden, 2011),
the rules set by the particular schools in my study come as no surprise: no
cell phones during class time; generally, no cell phones during the school
day. Regulating iPods and other mp3 players is more difficult, however,
and many mp3 players now include applications and hardware that provide
Internet, texting and phone capacities. In response to an inquiry about cell
phone rules, I received mixed responses from both students and teachers, as
if the rules themselves were not clearly defined.
Although only David at Riverpark thought that cell phones were allowed
at lunchtime, all of the students admitted that teachers seldom enforced the
lunchtime ban and looked the other way. Haley explained, Well, some
teachers are, like, you know, its lunch time, so its not technically class,
but some teachers dont like it when you have a cell phone out. Nicholas
remarked that teachers understand using cell phones during lunch, and
Carrie shared an anecdote about a teacher who cautioned her to put her
phone away, But we were going to lunch so it wasnt that big of a deal. At
Centreville, Mrs. Andrews and Jamal seemed clear that phones were permitted in the cafeteria, yet Jeffrey alluded to the handbook that claimed otherwise. Lunch activity aligned more with social time than academics, and the
rules became fuzzy for students and teachers alike.
6

Carrie suggested increased leniency in the hallways at Riverpark, and

Haley felt it was fine to use phones in the halls if you need to call your parents; yet Mr. Scott, from the same school, said the rules were especially
enforced in the hallway. Jeffrey, at Centreville, told me teachers often allow
students to use phones in the hallway, and Mrs. Andrews, from Centreville,
admitted that cell phone use in the halls was a gray area. . . a management
issue.
Some participants indicated that the cell phone rules were intended to
diminish open visibility of the devices, whereas others claimed that the rule
was to have the phones turned off entirely. Haley, at Riverpark, confusedly
cited both rules, that they were supposed to be off or like on vibrate. At
Centreville, Jeffreys words echoed Haley, explaining that the rules were to
have phones off, but that students just silence it or whatever.
Welltown Academy had the strictest policy, banning all handheld technological devices throughout the day; enforcement, however, was a different matter altogether.
Breaking the Rules: Everyone Basically Texts All the Time

Students readily admitted to breaking the school rules for cell phones. Ito
et al.s (2010) study uncovered several genres of adolescent technology
habits, the most prevalent being that of hanging out, such as on social
network sites or through cell phone texting. These researchers found that
students often developed work-arounds to subvert institutional barriers.
Every student with a cell phone talked about the rampant disregard of
rules during class time. Carrie kept hers accessible in her purse, and Haley
texted her mother daily. Maria summed up the sentiment across all participants when she stated definitively, Everyone basically texts all the time.
The teachers recognized that students were texting throughout the day,
blatantly disregarding school policy. Mr. Scotts solution to this problem
was to have students place phones on their desks, thereby rendering them
useless, an attempt to minimize the subversive nature of the activity going
on under desks and in handbags. However, within days an administrator
told him that such a rule violated the school policy.
Ms. Fisk, the youngest of my teacher participants, was aware of the
texting going on in her classroom, even given the strong non-usage policy at Welltown Academy. She explained, with compassion, I know why
[students] do it during school, because theyre not allowed to talk, so they
sit there and text on the corner of their legs. She aligned herself with a
younger generation and knew the tricks of students:

I know that when theyre looking in their pencil case for 30 seconds that
theyre not looking for a pencil. I mean, more that theyre looking for a
text message Theyre not supposed to have them in the classroom at
all. Youre not allowed to have backpacks in the classroom, just your
books. Girls arent allowed to bring purses for the same reason. So
now they bring pencil pouches because those are allowed. Boys will
just put them in their pocket and slide it out casually so its on the opposite side of me.
Self-Imposed Rules: I Find It Rude to Text During Classes

The students were able to articulate boundaries for themselves around cellphone rule-breaking. Although they seldom did so for, as Jeffrey said, moral reasons, they did have guidelines grounded in protocols of politeness
and manners.
Carrie, Haley and Nicholas all saw cell phone use during certain activities as disrespectful. Carrie said, If youre talking to someone like Im
talking to you right now, you wouldnt just take out your phone. Thats
rude. Nicholas echoed the sense of rudeness, as did Haley who said, I
feel as though its okay to text in class, but only when its not disrespecting a
person. She stood by protocols for good manners, relating text to conversation. Here again, Ito et al.s (2010) study supports this finding, suggesting
that student behaviors with new media mirror offline protocols.
These youth understood that teachers, reasonably, didnt want students
to disengage from the course work at hand. Haley alluded to a deep concern for her academics when she stated, I never just start texting the entire
class. I know personally that would be a waste. School is a time to learn
and I should take that time. You can text between classes.
Another reason to set self-imposed boundaries seems to be the degree
of attention required at a given time, and the value of listening, sometimes
as a subset of good manners. Carrie explained, its hard to listen to somebody and talk to somebody, and Haley concurred, mentioning the need to
follow directions carefully in some classes. Jeffrey was clear about not texting when his French teacher was lecturing because the language demanded
his careful attention. Students shared a similar worry about concentration
needed during math class. Haley explained, I cant text during math class.
That would be too hard for me. Maria echoed this sentiment, and Nicholas
confirmed, Math class is very, you dont want to miss anything.
Marias rationale for setting a boundary for herself concerned her proximity to the teacher and the fear of being caught: I dont text in English because
I sit right next to Mr. Scott. And if he sees anyone texting, we all have to write
8

a paper about texting. Other students, including Nicholas and Carrie, also
mentioned teacher proximity and consequences as deterrents, but some students risked detection, banking on the goodwill of the teacher toward them.
Given the complex decisions made by young people throughout their
day, these particular students, at the very least, were setting reasonable and
workable boundaries for themselves, even as they resisted institutional rules
that they felt were ineffective and unenforceable.
Then Whats to be Done?: Youve Got to Take the Consequences

When students tried to find a compromise between student text-activity and
school policy, they found themselves flummoxed by the tension. Jamal said,
Id probably have a time when all the kids shut off their phones, put them in
their pockets, keep their hands on the desks. But then he added: It would
be good to have your cell phones on cause in case of your parents, lets
say my mom was having a heart attack. Almost all participants discussed
communication with parents as part of their everyday usage. Many parents
agree to get cell phones for their teen in order to improve contact with them
(Common Sense Media, 2009). In general, teachers worried about the distraction, cheating, and safety issues, whereas the youth felt that texting in
class was, in Marias words, no big deal and could be managed through
self-regulation by the students.
Some students thought that the responsibility and consequences should
fall naturally on the student. Haley said, People need to learn from what
they do, so if you are texting instead of getting work done, whose fault is
that? Youve got to take the consequence for that. Jeffrey agreed, stating,
If it were me, I mean, frankly, I would just say kids can text all they want,
not during tests maybe because you could easily cheat like that, but during
class where theres no threat of academic dishonesty or anything. Because
really the only one theyre hurting is themselves.
Several people disliked the consequence of having the phone taken
away by the teacher when caught. Jamal, who himself did not own a cell
phone but who understood the economic value of one, said, I know we
cant use them, but they shouldnt be taking them away. They shouldnt be
touching stuff that you paid for. Carrie agreed, as did Ms. Fisk who mused,
How do you take that away? Its something theyre paying for You cant
take it and not give it back. And theyre not paying the bill, their parents
are. In direct defiance of the school rules for confiscation, Ms. Fisk refused
to hand phones over to the office when she caught students.
Mr. Scott recognized the inherent ambiguities in trying to set clear policy, as he sighed and quietly said, almost as an afterthought, I think our
9

rules are more reactive than proactive. I dont know how we could do it
any different.
Mrs. Andrews at Centreville also had a sigh in her voice as she reflected on the difficulty, stating, I think part of the complexity is how quickly
technology has advanced. I dont know that we can catch up with it, but
we certainly havent caught up to where we are at the present time. She
continued exploring this tension in light of other social media tools on the
computers themselves:
I think there will always be abuses. What you have to make clear is
where your standards are, that you recognize that this is a tool that can
help them with the task you have at hand, and there are parameters
where you can use that.
Mrs. Andrews understood that there needed to be some room for negotiation with students, and for teaching them boundaries.
Ms. Fisk at Welltown agreed, saying, I think its hard to put a restriction
on cell phones because theyre gonna use them. Her solution would be
to allow them during certain times and places. She added, I guess I dont
totally understand the policy.
Variance in Teacher Enforcement: She Took My Phone

A rule is only as strong as its enforcement in practice. As Jeffrey stated, Its
just weird that they make the rule but then they dont enforce it at all. All
of my participants, teachers and students alike, recognized that teachers enforced the cell phone rules differentially. Teachers varied on how strict they
were in upholding the policy, in how they approached different classes, and
in what the consequences were for getting caught. The level of tolerance
often correlated with age range, with younger teachers more forgiving and
flexible about the cell phone policy than older teachers.
There was a rich variety of responses about teacher enforcement of
the cell phone policy, illustrating a continuum of responses from strictly
authoritative, through reasonably restrictive, through laissez-faire, to oblivious. Some teachers, including Mr. Scott, had a no-nonsense, non-negotiable response to upholding the policy: if they saw the cell phone under any
circumstance, they took the phone.
In contrast, a less restrictive enforcement seems to comprise several
different approaches. Some teachers, such as Ms. Fisk and Mrs. Andrews,
did not tolerate the phones, but were gentler in their response, asking simply that they be put away.
10

Other teachers permitted cell phones, but this also divided out into two
approaches: those who permitted the cell phones to the point of disruption,
and those who permitted the cell phones because the particular class or activity could accommodate them without disruption to management. When
Carrie described her social studies teacher by saying she doesnt care, she
presented a very different attitude and reaction than when Maria described
her yearbook teacher by saying she just doesnt care. Examining the macrostructure (Gee, 2005) within which these girls words are embedded, we
see two different stories unfold. Carrie judged her teacher harshly, disapproving of her lack of management and directive. Maria, on the other hand,
described an atmosphere for building the yearbook that was informal and
open, and she respected the decision of the teacher to be lenient. Haley,
like Carrie, passed judgment on a teacher who she felt was far too permissive in his classroom control. She described his ineffectual attempts to quell
cell phone usage. And lastly, there were some teachers who, according to
the students, simply were oblivious to cell phone usage and therefore didnt
enforce a rule they didnt see being broken.
The question remains as to how a teacher might decide how to confront
the digital social activities that can and do become a distraction in classrooms. Both students and teachers in my study understood the variations in
stylistic approach to this issue.
Nicholas called it a big teacher thing, and explained, I think a lot
of my other teachers are more strict but its just easier to get around the
teacher in [English] class. Haley captured the reality of the tension in styles
well with this reflection: I feel if theres two people, theres always going to
be one really cool one and one that doesnt trust people [Some teachers are] very old fashioned. Jamal too mused about the issue, referring to
some teachers as mean or mad, and others as nice.
Negotiation and Trust, Student Views: Theres a Relationship

At the heart of this flexibility was a deep and intuitive teacher-student negotiation. The degree of enforcement varied, based primarily on the oneon-one (or one-on-classroom) relationships involved. This finding emerged
with crystal clarity as the students and teachers talked about the apparent
lack of consistency in enforcing rules about devices such as laptops, cell
phones and iPods, as well as computer use of Facebook, Myspace, game
sites, and other interactive programs. Rules are only as good as their enforcement, but the enforcement hinges primarily on relational trust.
Carries math teacher had a box near the entry to put the phones in,
partly by choice unless it became a problem, and the students respected
11

her compromise enough to follow it responsibly. Maria stated, I think it

depends on the student, and I think it depends on the class. Work ethics of
the class. She continued, Its kind of a trust thing. The teacher is trusting that, even though you are texting, youre still gonna do what you need
to do to get it done. But where theres a class that doesnt do their work,
youre not trusting that theyre going to get it done, and that theyre gonna
goof off. Nicholas echoed these sentiments, and Haley said she had been
given leeway from teachers before because they know that I have good intentions Im not trying to fool anyone. Im not trying to take advantage.
Haley spoke of the rule-setting as being about a relationship.
Haley mentioned the age of the teacher making a difference in this
process of negotiation. As mentioned earlier, the younger teachers, typically those seen as cool or nice, seemed to have a better understanding
of the student perspectives and activities, more willing to work out protocols together with the students. Haley explained that one teacher goes on
Facebook and you can relate to her, and shes young so youre a little more
at ease.
Negotiation and Trust, Teacher Views: A Judgment Call

The teachers also stressed the need for give-and-take around the rules for the
new networking tools, reiterating the value of relationships in establishing
workable protocols within classrooms. As Mr. Scott affirmed, I think 90%
of education is probably trust. Its trust from the educators, but its respect
from the students. Mrs. Andrews echoed these words, and explained further:
There cannot be hard and fast rules. Theres no formula that says if you
do this, that its going to work. I think each teacher needs to be open to
the possibilities, creative enough to see the implications, and a sergeant
in the sense of maintaining control in the classroom. You give your kids
parameters, but then you expect them to make decisions within that.
Ms. Fisk agreed, stating that she felt there were rules, but its also a judgment
call, depending on whether the student in question is goofing around all
the time or a good student. She continued, Im pretty cool with them,
lenient, and since I have that kind of relationship, I go about it more Im
disappointed. Here, she expresses the value of relationships and her selfdesignation of being cool because of her own age proximity to students.
These teachers described examples of flexibility in establishing policies around social digital tools. Mr. Scott was willing, during study hall, to
permit students to be on social networking sites after completing their work.
12

Mrs. Andrews described two learning moments within the past year. In the
first, a boy excitedly showed her a new function on his cell phone during
class. In the second, a girl used her smart phone to record homework assignments.
Ms. Fisk did, however, describe a moment where the student took advantage of her trust: I had someone make a phone call in the middle of
study hall, ordering a pizza or something ridiculous, and of course I took
the phone for that, cause I was so mad that someone would do that I felt
betrayed. And it was a good student that did it. The betrayal was amplified by the fact that it was a good student who made the call, indicating a
break in the established relationship. Ms. Fisk later admitted that she might
be perceived generally as being too trusting, but she was willing to err on
the side of students.
Ms. Fisk and Mrs. Andrews discussed moments of compromise, even
though both were aware of breaking school policy. Ms. Fisk stated, Ive
had kids come in and say, can I call my mom in here? And Im like, okay,
because Im not going to make them go all the way downstairs to call their
mom. Mrs. Andrews agreed: You know, a kid has forgotten that he had to
stay after school for make up. Send him to the office to make a call? And
thats going to take 15 minutes. Or say go outside the door and use your cell
phone, its more expedient. Its more efficient. These teachers understood
the value of having a cell phone on hand.
The teachers obviously did not want to be complicit in activities that
are illegal, unethical or unfair to others. Participants spoke of the ease of
cheating using iPods and cell phones, and Ms. Fisk and Mrs. Andrews both
alluded to the problem of cyberbullying, cruelty to others through harmful
material sent through electronic means (Willard, 2006), a serious problem
for todays youth (Magid, 2009). Ms. Fisk mused, They dont want that
happening on our turf. If some sort of messaging was going on and a parent found out and said this was happening in school? Theyd be like ohhh.
Mrs. Andrews agreed, I dont want to be responsible for a child who is being harassed by another one, and these things happen. Additionally, two
of the female students described being aware of (though not participating
in) inappropriate sexual activity, or sexting, through cell phones, such as
photographs or text that conveys sexually suggestive material (Magid, 2009;
Willard, 2006).
Implications
Teachers and students alike see the need to shift from authoritative teaching
roles toward a more democratic negotiation of classroom interaction based
13

on relationships of trust and respect. New digital media tools are pervasive
in schools and have the potential to re-align power dynamics in the classroom in fruitful ways. This work suggests several strategies that might be
implemented to better fit new paradigms of learning and communicating.
1. Assist students to gain clear understanding of when and how cell
phones might be appropriate or inappropriate. Allow all stakeholders (students, teachers, parents) to be participants in developing clear rules and
protocols for possession and use of mobile devices, and educate them about
the legal consequences of potential abuses of these tools (Kolb, 2011).
Schools should set rules that are enforceable and reasonable, a process that
means balancing legal obligations with the realities of student culture and
tools (Diamantes, 2010; Humble-Thaden, 2011). It may be possible for
institutions to suggest guidelines and to set consequences for abuse, while
working with teachers and students alike to negotiate permissible circumstances and contexts for use. Less ambiguous rules, as well as agreed-upon
areas for potential negotiation, may help to define limits and boundaries for
both teachers and students.
2. Incorporate new media into pedagogical practices through mobile
technologies. Although it may feel like a leap from simply condoning to
actively encouraging cell phone usage in the classroom, many scholars are
suggesting precisely this mobile-learning (m-learning) approach that
moves beyond Web 2.0 e-learning (Hlodan, 2010). This paradigm suggests that teachers and schools develop activities and methodologies to permit students to use these tools through structured, monitored and explicit
instruction. Newer smartphones with multiple capabilities, and similar
handheld mobile devices, are now being used deliberately in some places
as a less-costly alternative to laptops in programs encouraging students to
engage in academic pursuits (Hlodan, 2010; Humble-Thaden, 2011). These
devices might also enhance communication between student and teacher
through text-messaging that supplements or encourages additional learning
beyond the classroom walls (Thomas & Orthober, 2011).
Arguing that students will need 21st century skills, including text-messaging and connecting to the Internet, Kolb (2011) articulated a number
of advantages of, and strategies for, incorporating devices into classrooms.
Mobile devices permit flexibility of learning beyond the walls of the classroom, can empower and engage students in their learning, provide excellent organizational applications, and provide new media presentations such
as podcasts and geotagging, or creating maps with uploaded data (Kolb,
2011). These advantages provide practical suggestions for negotiating rules
and protocols within schools.
14

3. Develop meta-awareness of discourse use. Given the complex eand m-realities for todays youth, I recommend the development of what
I have termed relational neteracy, or a shared articulation and negotiation of the intersections and boundaries of various discourse communities
(Charles, 2009). This meta-awareness must be taught, yet perhaps also simultaneously learned, by teachers who help students gain a deep appropriation of these intersections and boundaries within classrooms, including
understanding both the advantages and consequences of these discourses.
Conclusion
Regardless of potential dangers, teachers and students in my study overwhelmingly felt the need for a reasonable and balanced perspective on the
issue of rules for new technologies, especially around mobile devices such
as cell phones and smartphones. Compromises and negotiations will not
solve all the problems, and abuses can still happen, but, as Ms. Fisk explained, You know, its trusting, trusting in picking and choosing your battles. Mrs. Andrews too reflected philosophically, I think we all just carve
out what we can live with and abide by, and carve out the intent of the rule.
Schools and teachers set rules and protocols that define appropriate behaviors with social digital tools and discourses. Nevertheless, students and
teachers frequently negotiate the boundaries through relationships founded
on trust and respect.
References
Charles, A. (2009). Its just part of what we do: Adolescent interactions with multimodal texts across social spaces. Ph.D. dissertation, University of New Hampshire,
United States; New Hampshire. Retrieved November 12, 2011, from Dissertations
& Theses: Full Text. (Publication No. AAT 3400341).
Common Sense Media. (2009). Rules of the road for texting: Make the rules long before
they get behind the wheel. Retrieved from http://www.commonsensemedia.org/
rules-roadtexting?utm_source= newsletter08.27.09&utm_medium= email&utm_
campaign=feature1
Diamantes, T. (2010). Recent court rulings regarding student use of cell phones in todays
schools. Education, 131(2), 404-406.
Gee, J. P. (2005). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method (2nd ed.).
New York, NY: Routledge.
Hlodan, O. (2010). Mobile learning anytime. anywhere. American Institute of Biological
Sciences, 60(9), 682.
Humble-Thaden, M. (2011). Student reflective perceptions of high school educational
cell phone technology usage. The Journal of Technology Studies, 37(1), 10-16.
Ito, M., Baumer, S., Bittani, M., Boyd, D., Herr-Stephenson, B., Horst, H., Lange, P., &
Tripp, L. (2010). Hanging out, messing around, and geeking out. Cambridge, MS:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.
15

Kolb, L. (2011). Adventures with cell phones. Educational Leadership, 68(5), 39-43.
Magid, L. (2009). Teens sext and post personal info. Safe and secure: A blog by Larry
Magid CNET News. June 24, 2009. Retrieved from http://news.cnet.com/830119518_3-10272311-238.html?tag=mncol
Moje, E. B., & Lewis, C. (2007). Examining opportunities to learn literacy: The role of
critical sociocultural literacy research. In C. Lewis, P. Enciso, & E. B. Moje (Eds.),
Reframing sociocultural research on literacy: Identity, agency, and power (pp. 1548). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Rogoff, B. (1995). Observing sociocultural activity on three planes: participatory appropriation, guided participation, and apprenticeship. In J. V. Wertsch, P. del Rio,
& A. Alvarez (Eds.), Sociocultural studies of mind (pp. 139164). New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Thomas, K., & Orthober, C. (2011). Using text-messaging in the secondary classroom.
American Secondary Education, 39(2), 55-76.
Willard, N. (2006). A briefing for educators: Online social networking communities and
youth risk. Center for Safe and Responsible Internet Use. Retrieved from http://
www.cyberbully.org/cyberbully/docs/youthriskonlinealert.pdf
16
Copyright of American Secondary Education is the property of American Secondary Education and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express
written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Cell Phones Rule Setting

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Cell Phones Rule Setting

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

American Secondary Education 40(3) Summer 2012