Smartphones as digital instructional interface devices: the teacher’s perspective

  • Terrence Manyeredzi Science and Mathematics Education Department, Bindura University of Science Education, Bindura, Zimbabwe
  • Vongai Mpofu Science and Mathematics Education Department, Bindura University of Science Education, Bindura, Zimbabwe
Keywords: nomophobia, technophobia, online teaching, digital instructional interface


Globally, many nations have put in place policies on technology enhanced teaching and learning in an effort to keep abreast with the rapid advancement in technology. However, the use of technology in education has been slow in many third world countries, inclusive of Zimbabwe. COVID-19 restrictions inadvertently accelerated the adoption of digital instructional interface devices (DIIDs). Smartphones are preferred DIIDs because of their popularity amongst children as well as teachers. However, their successful penetration as DIIDs is largely dependent on teachers’ dispositions as key agents of curriculum implementation. Zimbabwe is known to have a 52% smartphone penetration rate for all citizens. The study was therefore carried out to determine the penetration rate of smartphones in science teachers, and also to probe teachers’ views on learners being allowed unlimited access to smartphones. The study adopted descriptive survey design from a quantitative research approach. Data was collected from 179 science teachers through a self-developed electronic questionnaire that was administered through the Kobo Toolbox online survey application. Results show that the smartphone penetration rate in science teachers is 87%. Multitasking and indecent exposure are the main forms of learner deviance that make teachers more reluctant to accept smartphones as DIIDs. In the presence of school-wide and classroom policies that cater for both merits of smartphone use and ease of policy enforcement, Zimbabwe science teachers are however ready to fully embrace smartphones as useful DIIDs.


Download data is not yet available.


Atarodi, A., Rajabi, M. & Atarodi, A. (2020) ‘Cell phone use and social alienation of young teenagers’, Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal), 3901, [online] Available at:

Baticulon, R. E., et al., (2021) ‘Barriers to online learning in the time of COVID-19: a national survey of medical students in the Philippines’, Medical Science Educator, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 615–626. doi: 10.1007/s40670-021-01231-z

Bazant, M. Z. & Bush, J. W. M. (2021) ‘A guideline to limit indoor airborne transmission of COVID-19’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2018995118

Darko-Adjei, N. (2019) ‘The use and effect of smartphones in students’ learning activities: evidence from the University of Ghana, Legon’, Library Philosophy and Practice, [online] Available at:

Draisin, N. and Vincenten, J. (2020) Guidance for safe and healthy journeys to school, [online] Available at:

Espino-Díaz, L., et al., (2020) ‘Analyzing the impact of COVID-19 on education professionals. Toward a paradigm shift: ICT and neuroeducation as a binomial of action’, Sustainability (Switzerland), vol. 12, no. 14, pp. 1–10. doi: 10.3390/su12145646

Fernando, F., Patrizia, G. & Tiziana, G. (2020) ‘Online learning and emergency remote teaching: opportunities and challenges in emergency situations’, Societies, pp. 1–18, [online] Available at:

Gerede, K. (2020) ‘Zimbabwe: low smartphone penetration frustrates econet’s digital drive –’, AllAfrica, [online] Available at:

Hanımoğlu, E. (2018) ‘Deviant behavior in school setting’, Journal of Education and Training Studies, vol. 6, no. 10, p. 133. doi: 10.11114/jets.v6i10.3418

Hodges, C., et al., (2020) The Difference Between Emergency Remote Teaching and Online Learning | EDUCAUSE, EduCause, [online] Available at:

Jabbari, Y. & Azarfam, A. A. Y. (2012) ‘Dealing with teachers’ technophobia in classroom’, Advances in Asian Social Science, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 452–455.

Jandrić, P., et al., (2020) ‘Teaching in the age of COVID-19 Petar’, Postdigital Science and Education, vol. 2, pp. 1069–1230.

Khasawneh, O. Y. (2018) ‘Technophobia without boarders: the influence of technophobia and emotional intelligence on technology acceptance and the moderating influence of organizational climate’, Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 88, pp. 210–218. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2018.07.007

Kiseleva, A. (2018) ‘What is artificial intelligence and why does it matter for Copyright’, 21 November, [online] Available at:

Maphalala, M. C. & Nzama, M. V. (2014) ‘The proliferation of cell phones in high schools: the implications for the teaching and learning process’, Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 461–466. doi: 10.5901/mjss.2014.v5n3p461

Morris, P. & Sarapin, S. (2020) ‘Mobile phones in the classroom: policies and potential pedagogy’, Journal of Media Literacy Education, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 57–69. doi: 10.23860/JMLE-2020-12-1-5

Mpungose, C. B. (2020) ‘Emergent transition from face-to-face to online learning in a South African University in the context of the coronavirus pandemic’, Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 1–9. doi: 10.1057/s41599-020-00603-x

Mupinga, D. M. (2017) ‘School-Wide and Classroom Policies on the Use of Mobile Technologies: An Exploratory Study’, Journal of Technology Studies, vol. 43, no. 2, doi: 10.21061/jots.v43i2.a.2

Nevenglosky, E. A., Cale, C. & Aguilar, S. P. (2019) ‘Barriers to effective curriculum implementation’, Research in Higher Education Journal, vol. 36, p. 31, [online] Available at:

Ngesi, N., et al., (2018) ‘Use of mobile phones as supplementary teaching and learning tools to learners in South Africa’, Reading & Writing, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 1–12. doi: 10.4102/rw.v9i1.190

O’Bannon, B. W. & Thomas, K. M. (2015) ‘Mobile phones in the classroom: preservice teachers answer the call’, Computers and Education, vol. 85, pp. 110–122. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2015.02.010

OECD (2016) Innovating Education and Educating for Innovation. doi: 10.1787/9789264265097-en

Osiceanu, M.-E. (2015) ‘Psychological implications of modern technologies: “Technofobia” versus “Technophilia”’, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 180, pp. 1137–1144. doi: 10.1016/J.SBSPRO.2015.02.229

Ott, T. (2017) ‘Mobile phones in school from disturbing objects to infrastructure for learning’, (August), [online] Available at:

Ott, T., et al., (2018) ‘“It must not disturb, it’s as simple as that”: students’ voices on mobile phones in the infrastructure for learning in Swedish upper secondary school’, Education and Information Technologies, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 517–536. doi: 10.1007/s10639-017-9615-0

Portulans Institute (2020) The Network Readiness Index 2020: Accelerating Digital Transformation, pp. 1–330, [online] Available at:

Straub, E. T. (2009) ‘Understanding technology adoption: theory and future directions for informal learning’, Review of Educational Research, vol. 79, no. 2, pp. 625–649. doi: 10.3102/0034654308325896

Torbert, P. M. (2021) ‘Because it is wrong: the immorality and illegality of the online service contracts of Google and Facebook’, SSRN Electronic Journal, vol. 12, no. 1. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3537227

Twum, R. (2017) ‘Utilization of smartphones in science teaching and learning in selected universities in Ghana’, Journal of Education and Practice, vol. 8, no. 7, pp. 216–228.

Warnich, P. and Gordon, C. (2015) ‘The integration of cell phone technology and poll everywhere as teaching and learning tools into the school history classroom’, Yesterday and Today, no. 13, pp. 40–66, [online] Available at:
How to Cite
Manyeredzi T., & Mpofu V. (2022). Smartphones as digital instructional interface devices: the teacher’s perspective. Research in Learning Technology, 30.
Original Research Articles