Jones, Edwards, and Reid (2009) found that students check for text messages on their mobile phones frequently and always respond to the arrival tone. Therefore, a significant feature of text messaging is the immediate capture of the recipient's attention. Such attention-getting may lead to an improvement in students’ focus and motivation (Martinez-Torres et al. 2007) and result in an enhanced learning experience. Allen, Witt, and Wheeless (2006) found that an immediate response from the instructor increased students’ motivation and the cognitive mastery of material.

Text messaging is also an advantage because mobile devices are nearly always turned on and owned by the majority of students (Shih and Mills 2007). On the other hand, instant messaging requires signing in (usually on a computer rather than a mobile phone) to engage in an online conversation. Students in Bullen, Morgan, and Qayyam's (2011) student reported that if someone to whom they wish to send instant messages is not signed in, they would phone them and tell them to go online.

It is notable that text messaging is perceived by students to be more “instant” than email and is the dominant mode of e-communication among students (Harley et al. 2007). Given its role as a primary communication channel, text messaging has been identified as preferable to email in building both social and academic relationships. For example, Longmate and Baber (2002) found that text messaging helped to consolidate relationships among students, while email was rarely used for student–student communication. Rau, Gao, and Wu (2008) noted that students in email and online forums did not report feeling positively about or bonded with their instructor, though students using text messaging did report such phenomena. Naismith's (2007) study suggested that text messaging is more beneficial than email because email requires access to computers, but students “look at their phones constantly” (p. 166). While the use of email is advantageous in higher education (Lauricella and Kay 2010), increased immediacy and ubiquity of communication via text messaging and/or instant messaging may be even more beneficial.

Text messaging is helpful for supporting brief or time-sensitive administrative issues. For example, students can be reminded of upcoming due dates for library books (Anderson and Blackwood 2004) or to contact librarians for assistance with research (Hill, Hill, and Sherman 2007). Jeong (2007) adds that instant messaging can be used for virtual office hours, thus transcending geographical challenges on the part of both students and faculty. Text messaging can also be used for emergencies such as class cancellations (Brown, Vetter, and Saunders-White 2008; Smith, Salaway, and Caruso 2009).

Because of its immediacy and ubiquity, text messaging is particularly well suited to providing time-management assistance to students. Text messaging has been suggested as a means of reminding students of assignment or application due dates, and timetable or procedural changes (Keegan 2005; Naismith 2007), although administrative staff members have been slow to incorporate text messaging with students or colleagues (Pirani and Sheehan 2009). Jones, Edwards, and Reid (2009) suggest that text messaging reminders from faculty can help students to develop a time-management strategy. Similarly, Harley et al. (2007) found that text messaging reminders of when assignments are due can be of particular benefit to helping first-year students adjust to academic life. Finally, instant messaging is also used for receiving immediate responses to students’ questions or concerns, and facilitating a two-way conversation between students and faculty (Yao 2011).

While limited research has been conducted on the use of text and instant messaging for specific educational activities, some academic benefits have been observed including using text and instant messaging involving students who are not physically present in class (Muirhead 2005), engaging in simulations of decision-making scenarios (Cornelius and Marston 2009), collecting field data (Patten, Sanchez, and Tangney 2006) or learning new vocabulary words in a learned language (Cavus and Ibrahim 2009). Use of text and instant messaging can be further expanded to incorporate new social networking tools, which are increasingly used in higher education such as Facebook or Twitter (Grosseck and Holotescu 2008; Hosterman 2009).

Given that a single-text messages is limited to 140 characters, faculty and students may be challenged by the short message length and brevity of language required (Hill, Hill, and Sherman 2007).

When students respond to the arrival tone of new text messages, their attention is drawn away from the current task in which they are engaged. This can be a significant distraction when text messaging is used in class (Markett et al. 2006). Similar problems exist for instant messaging conversations. Junco and Cotton (2011) observed that instant messaging is detrimental to learning because it requires students to split their attention in an academic setting.

Until free services to the education market are provided, cost could be a factor in adopting text messaging for academic purposes (Litchfield et al. 2007; Markett et al. 2006; Peters 2007). The same challenge does not exist for instant messaging, as nearly all services are available for free. However, the unique challenge to instant messaging is that the user has to be signed in to a computer in order to participate.

While text and instant messaging can serve to increase familiarity between students and faculty, students were seen to resent such communication when it was used for academic purposes. Students considered their mobile phones a personal technology, and in some cases, disliked receiving text messages from faculty or tutors because it encroached into their personal space (Brett, 2011). Instant messaging is also considered a private, peer-to-peer communication tool, and students do not always want to appear visible to their instructor or to other students (Jeong 2007).

All students were asked to provide their age, gender, year of study and the course in which they were enrolled while using the messaging tools. They were also asked to rate their comfort level with using mobile phones and instant messaging based on a four-point Likert scale (see question 5, Lauricella and Kay 2011a).

Students were prompted to estimate how often they used mobile phones and instant messaging with their instructor (see question 6, Lauricella and Kay 2011a) and with their peers (see question 10, Lauricella and Kay 2011a). Six choices were available: never, monthly, 2–3 times per month, weekly, 2–3 times per week and daily.

Students were asked to rate the usefulness of mobile phones and instant messaging with their instructor (see question 7, Lauricella and Kay 2011a) and with their peers (see question 11, Lauricella and Kay 2011a). Students were also presented with open-ended questions about why they did or did not use mobile phones and instant messaging with their instructor (see questions 8 and 9, Lauricella and Kay 2011a) and with their peers (see questions 12 and 13, Lauricella and Kay 2011a).

A content analysis was conducted on open-ended questions asking why text messaging was used and a number of categories and subcategories were identified (see Lauricella and Kay 2011b for a detailed presentation of the coding scheme). Two raters independently assigned content category and subcategory labels based on the coding scheme (Lauricella and Kay 2011b). Items where categories and subcategories were not the same were reviewed, discussed and rated a second time. Final inter-rater reliability estimates were 97% (mobile phones with instructors), 100% (mobile phones with peers), 98% (instant messaging with instructors) and 100% (instant messaging with peers).

Mobile phones were used with the instructor 2–3 times per month (22%), weekly (46%) or 2–3 times per week (11%), by the majority of students. The mean frequency score (M = 3.6, SD = 1.2) suggested that, on average, students sent messages to or received messages from their instructor almost once a week throughout the four-month term (see Table 1).

Mobile phones were even more popular as a communication tool for academic purposes among peers. Most students used this tool either 2–3 times per week (15%) or daily (58%) with their peers. The mean frequency score (M = 4.8, SD = 1.7) suggests that texting peers for academic benefit is an everyday occurrence for most students (see Table 1).

Students used instant messaging infrequently to communicate with their instructor with 66% of students never using it and 14% using it monthly. The mean frequency score (M = 1.7, SD = 1.3) indicates that instant messaging is not a tool that most students use to communicate with their instructor (see Table 1).

In contrast, students regularly used instant messaging for academic purposes with their peers. Many students used this tool either 2–3 times per week (15%) or daily (51%) for sending messages to their peers. The mean frequency score (M = 4.8, SD = 1.7) intimates that instant messaging for academic reasons is a daily activity for many students (see Table 1).

All but one student rated mobile phones as either useful (19%) or very useful (80%) for communicating with their instructor. This pattern was mirrored when using mobile phones to communicate with peers: 19% of students rated them as useful and 75% rated them as very useful. Mean usefulness with instructors (M=3.8, SD=0.5) and peers (M = 3.7, SD = 0.6) was high (maximum score was 4) (see Table 2).

Students perceived instant messages as somewhat to moderately useful (M = 2.6, SD = 1.2) for communicating with their instructor; however, response varied considerably. The perception of usefulness shifted markedly when instant messaging was used to communicate with peers for academic purposes. Most students rated peer use as either useful (16%) or very useful (73%) with a mean usefulness score of 3.6 (SD = 0.7) on a four-point Likert scale.

Students offered a total of 97 comments about using mobile phones with their instructors. Four main reasons for using this mode of communication were cited including time (40% of comments), specific purpose (26%), convenience (23%) and ease of use (9%). With respect to time, students liked that sending text messages was instant, especially when they had an urgent message for the instructor. Regarding purpose, most students appreciated the reminders they received from the instructor about due dates, assignments and last-minute requests to bring items or information to class. Students also felt that texting with mobile phones was convenient because they did not need a computer, and their phones, which most students owned, were always on. Students also noted that sending mobile phone text messages was easy and efficient (Table 3).

Students provided 65 comments about using mobile phones with their peers for academic support. The reasons for using this device with peers mirrored those cited for use with instructors, namely, time and the instant speed of transactions (34% of messages), a specific academic purpose (25%), convenience (22%) and ease of use (15%). Note that the academic purposes for using a mobile phone with peers were different from those cited for instructors. Students primarily sent text messages when they wanted to work in groups or when they needed academic help from their friends. The main convenience of using mobile phones with peers was that everyone one owned them and they were always on (see Table 4).

There were 58 comments from students about the use of instant messaging with the instructor; over 50% of the comments cited barriers to using this form of communication. Resistance to use was predicated on having better options available with email or mobile phones, instant messaging being too personal and the limitation of the instructor having to be signed in to receive messages. Students who did use instant messaging with the professor liked the instant speed (31% of comments) and ease of use (14% of comments) (Table 5).

The use of instant messaging for academic reasons was very different with peers than with the instructor. Students cited a number of clear and specific reasons why instant messaging with peers was effective including obtaining quick information, such as links to helpful websites, organising group activities, sending files, discussing issues, multi-tasking (35% of comments). Other reasons for using instant messaging, similar to those cited previously, were the convenience of most students being signed in (16%) and ease of use (11%). Several students commented that using instant messaging was very natural – almost part of their culture. One student observed that instant messaging could be a distraction in class, and two students noted that they simply chose not to use it (see Table 6).

Students used mobile phones significantly more often with their peers than their instructor (p<0.001, see Table 1) with a large effect size according to Cohen (1988, 1992). With each other, students used mobile phones to send text messages, on average, two to three times per week, whereas with the instructor they texted on a weekly basis.

Students used instant messaging significantly more often with their peers than with their instructor (p<0.005, see Table 1) with a large effect size according to Cohen (1988, 1992). Frequency of instant messaging among peers, on average, was 2–3 times per week, substantially more than the monthly use with the instructor.

There was no significant difference between student ratings of mobile phone usefulness with their instructor vs. peers. On the other hand, students rated instant messaging as significantly more useful when communicating with their peers (p<0.001, see Table 2) with a large effect size according to Cohen (1988, 1992). Instant messaging with peers was rated as very useful, on average, but only somewhat useful when used with the instructor.

The reasons cited for using mobile phones with the instructor versus peers were very similar in content and frequency: saving time, specific academic purposes, convenience and ease of use. One main difference involved the overall purpose of using text messaging. Aside from emergency situations, students passively received reminders from the instructor (e.g. “It was great to be able to get quick updates and reminders delivered straight to my phone”) but actively used mobiles phones to form groups and seek help from their peers (e.g. “Mobile phone allows us to get into contact for meetings” or “Allows you to get help on assignments through peer-to-peer help”).

Students agreed that instant messaging with the instructor or peers was efficient, convenient and easy to use. However, most students did not use instant messaging with their instructor (see Table 5), believing that alternative communication tools were more efficient because the instructor was not always logged into an instant messaging forum. A number of students also noted that instant messaging was too familiar or personal to use with the instructor (see Table 5). On the other hand, students actively used instant messaging with their peers for a wide variety of tasks including getting help, working in groups, having discussions and sending files (see Table 6).