Is phubbing a matter for educators: A case for pre-service and in-service teachers

Abstract

Becoming one of the indispensable tools of our daily life, mobile phones have accelerated the pace of our life by facilitating our business affairs. In addition to the good aspects of these tools reshaping even our habits, they also have various psychological and physiological damages. One of the behaviors for which the cell phone is considered as harmful is phubbing. Phubbing is defined as giving the perception of the individual to his/her mobile phone, not to these people during the communication with other individuals. Considering the increasing use of such technological tools in the classroom, within the scope of phubbing, the status of teachers, one of the important stakeholders of the education environment, is also important. From this point of view, in this study, it was purposed to examine the status of being phubber of pre-service and in-service teachers and their exposure to phubbing in terms of age and gender variables. The study designed in correlational survey method, was conducted with the data collected from 293 people, 46 in-service teachers and 247 pre-service teachers, through the Generic Scale of Phubbing and Generic Scale of Being Phubbed. The independent samples t-Test and Pearson correlation analysis were implemented in the context of the research questions. The results of the analysis indicated that the pre-service teachers are higher in terms of both being a phubber and phubbee than the in-service teachers. In addition to this, it was comprehended that these concepts did not differ in terms of gender and age. On the other hand, it was found out that the behavior of being a phubber tended to increase as getting older. Moreover, it was observed that the participants and the pre-service teachers who were phubber were also exposed to this behavior.

Online Learning Readiness, Phubbing and Sofalizing Levels of Pre-Service Teachers amidst Pandemic

“…However, although the differences were not significant, it was determined that female participants exhibited more phubbing. This finding was in line with the literature (Guazzini et al, 2019;İlic & Tanyeri, 2021;Parmaksız, 2019). On the other hand, it was concluded that males were more phubbed when compared to females.…”

“…Because of the above-mentioned factors and, therefore, the phubbing behavior was expected to increase during the pandemic. On the other hand, the findings were consistent with the literature (Balta et al, 2020;İlic & Tanyeri, 2021). It was suggested that this could be because individuals did not leave their homes regularly, and they may have responded to the related items due to social desirability, even if they were engaged in phubbing behavior.…”

An examination of phubbing and being phubbed behaviors among Turkish teachers

“…This result coincides with the result of the study on school psychological counselors conducted by Aydoğdu and Çevik (2020). It also corroborates with the result of study on teachers and teacher candidates conducted by İliç and Tanyeri (2021). However, it is not consistent with studies on university graduates (Roberts et al, 2014) and university graduates (Karadağ et al, 2015).…”

“…In addition, they suggested that phubbing should be investigated amongst the teachers. On the other hand, 46 in-service and 247 pre-service teachers participated in the study in which İliç and Tanyeri (2021) aimed to examine the status of phubbing and being phubbed according to age and gender. It was seen that there was no difference in terms of gender and age, but the phubbing behavior tended to increase as they got older.…”

Students' Phubbing in Rural University Classrooms: Are They Crossing Boundaries? Academics' Perceptions

“…A seven-point Likert scale questionnaire was used for the study to collect data. Findings revealed that pre-service teachers were more in the case of being both phubbee (x̄Pre-service teacher = 79.65 > x̄In-service teacher = 72.89) and phubber (x̄Pre-service teacher = 43.54 > x̄In-service teacher = 38.39) compared with the in-service teachers [24].…”