Introduction

The UNESCO (2023) report indicates that most countries worldwide are concerned about whether children’s digital upbringing may lead to unintended side effects. In Norway, some of these concerns have been highlighted in the Screen Time Committee’s NOU (NOU 2024: 20) and the Privacy Commission’s report (NOU 2022: 11). A general pattern that emerges is that most countries are continuously discussing concerns related to mobile phone use, extensive screen time, and the impact of social media on mental health (UNESCO, 2023). Several factors contribute to this issue, the knowledge base is somewhat divided, and there is a lack of solid longitudinal studies in the field.

When taking a broader perspective on screen use and social media use, it touches upon several discourses for which schools hold a primary responsibility. This includes how these factors influence the Bildung journeys of children and adolescents, as well as whether screen time and social media enhance or hinder learning. In this issue, we have therefore invited researchers and academic communities to contribute position papers on what they consider the most critical aspects of the societal debate on screen use, viewed from a research perspective.

Background

The impact of digitalization on society is complex and multifaceted, sparking a wide range of debates across various fields. The following eleven discourses represent a synthesis of even broader discussions and perspectives on this topic regarding Smartphones, social media and screen time. While they provide a structured overview of key themes—ranging from moral panic and mental health to education, democracy, and commercial interests—they are by no means exhaustive. Instead, they serve as a lens through which we can better understand the ongoing societal shifts driven by digital technologies.

1. The Moral Panic Discourse

Technology is described as a threat to children’s and young people’s development, physical and mental health, and social skills. Often compared to previous media panics (TV, video games, etc.).

2. The Educational Discourse

Focus on how digital tools can be integrated into teaching for learning and development.Debate on digital literacy and learning versus multitasking, and digital distractions in schools.

3. The Mental Health and Well-being Discourse

Concerns about the impact of screen use on sleep, mental health, stress, and addiction.Discussions about the role of screen time, Smartphones and social media in increasing anxiety and depression among young people.

4. The Technological Determinism Discourse

Views technology as an inevitable force shaping society and human behavior.Debate on whether we control technology or if it controls us.

5. The Commercial Discourse

Tech companies’ financial interests in creating addiction through algorithms and design.Criticism of the business model behind social media and digital platforms.

6. The Democratic Discourse

Mobile phones and social media as tools for freedom of expression, activism, and political mobilization. At the same time, concerns about disinformation, ethics, privacy, polarization, and echo chambers.

7. The Social Relations Discourse

How screen use affects interpersonal relationships, family interactions, and friendships.Tension between FOMO, nomophobia, etc., and physical-digital “detox.”

8. The Digital Parenting Discourse

Debate on whether parents should regulate children’s screen time, “walk the talk,” or teach them self-regulation. Different approaches to digital parenting and “screen parenting.”

9. The Digital Work-life Discourse

The divide (or lack thereof) between work and leisure in a hyper-connected world. How screens affect productivity, multitasking, and digital “burnout.”

10. The Cultural Generational Discourse

Generational gaps in how digital media are used and understood. Young people as “digital natives” versus older generations with a more skeptical attitude.

11. The discourse on the digitalisation of childhood and physical inactivity

An increasing concern regarding children and adolescents’ physical inactivity due to rising indoor screen time, social media use, and smartphone usage. There is often disagreement between those who view this as a societal problem and those who believe it will resolve itself over time.

In recent years, there has been a substantial focus on The Mental Health and Well-being Discourse and the potential impact of social media and screen time on students’ mental health (Valkenburg, et al., 2022). In the wake of the significant focus on mobile phone use, social media use, and mental health in recent years, there has also been a growing emphasis on implementing mobile phone bans in schools (Goodyear et al., 2025). The intense focus in recent years on mobile phone use, social media use, bullying, and mental health is important, but has it led to the school’s primary mission—learning—being pushed into the background? In this Editorial, I address the Educational Discourse and whether, and if, how smartphones, algorithm-driven technology exposure and media multitasking contributes to learning and learning loss in schools.

Over the past 10 to 15 years, the digitalization of education systems has accelerated worldwide, and the prevalence of smartphones among students is also very high in most countries, resulting in a high technology density in most upper secondary school classrooms. However, the systematic review by Tamim and colleagues (2015a, b) reveals that, despite these well-intentioned efforts from the governments, such initiatives face numerous challenges. These hurdles are not only related to the learning outcomes themselves but also to various contextual factors, including off-task activities among students, teachers’ digital competence, algorithm-driven technology exposure through smartphones, mobile bans or not, and so on. Mobile phone bans in schools have been implemented in various regions worldwide, ranging from complete bans to requiring students to lock away their phones or simply prohibiting their use during school hours (Krumsvik, 2023; Campbell, et al., 2024). However, the area lacks research knowledge, and conceptual clarifications, about how media multitasking affects learning and learning loss. In this Editorial, learning loss “refers to any specific or general loss of knowledge and skills or to reversals in academic progress” (The Educational Reform Glossary, 2024). For example, summer holidays are commonly associated with learning loss, but ineffective teaching and digital distractions can also contribute to learning loss over time but there seems to be a gap in this field that needs further examination. For example, Betthäuser et al. (2023) found in their meta-analysis that learning progress was significantly slowed during the COVID-19 pandemic in most countries, with digital teaching being one contributing factor. The overall effect size of d = −0.14 indicates that students missed out on approximately 35% of the learning gains of a normal school year. This impact was most severe for students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, and some of these effects have persisted beyond the pandemic (Betthäuser et al., 2023). What we still know too little about is how this is evolving with the debate over mobile phone policies in schools. It remains complex, balancing positive aspects of such digitalization, concerns about distractions, digital literacy, and child safety (Krumsvik, 2023; Campbell et al., 2024), and we need better sector knowledge and knowledge preparedness within this area.

Some glimpses into the current state of knowledge

From a contemporary analytical perspective, we found during the period 2008–2013 that, despite new learning opportunities provided by ICT, an increasingly digital lifestyle was tied to algorithm-driven technology exposure through smartphones and laptops, characterized by phenomena such as nomophobia, FOMO, multitasking, technoference, and nudging, which were almost as prevalent in educational settings as in leisure contexts (Krumsvik & Jones, 2015; Moltudal et al., 2019; Krumsvik et al., 2020). Among over 20,000 high school students, a recurring pattern was the pervasive impact of massive amounts of counterproductive feedback, screen time, and off-task technology exposure during instruction, which negatively affected the learning environment and learning outcomes. Nevertheless, in certain subjects and classrooms, digital distractions were not a problem, partly due to the teacher’s classroom management.

While previous research and knowledge reviews have focused on broader measures (e.g., mobile bans, phone storage policies in schools), fewer have specifically examined the impact of media multitasking and digital distractions on learning and learning loss. Addressing these gaps with greater emphasis moving forward is critical considering the implementation of AI. AI raises questions about whether it promotes or hinders phenomena such as nomophobia, FOMO, multitasking, technoference, and nudging, and how these might affect both learning and learning loss.

Previous reviews have recommended focusing on increasing students’ digital competence and self-regulation abilities rather than implementing mobile phone bans in schools. However, our studies show that nomophobia, FOMO, and so on override self-regulation mechanisms, leading to persistent digital distractions in the classroom (Krumsvik & Jones, 2015; Moltudal et al., 2019; Krumsvik et al., 2020). This form of media multitasking challenges information processing and cognitive learning, and raises concerns related to learning and learning loss in several ways. It seems therefore necessary to shift the focus from a broad discussion on mobile phone bans to a more nuanced examination of how self-regulation versus collective regulation impacts learning and learning loss.

Cognitive theory of multimedia learning (Mayer & Moreno, 2003; Mayer, 2014) and cognitive load theory (Sweller, 1988), explain that learning declines in multimedia multitasking due to dual-channel (visual and verbal) limitations and difficulties integrating new information with existing knowledge. Threaded cognition theory further suggests that multitasking interference stems from cognitive, perceptual, or motor bottlenecks that restrict information processing.

Several studies demonstrate that algorithm-generated technology exposure and digital lifestyles influence learning both directly and indirectly. Multitasking on social networking sites (SNS) is particularly widely recognized as a significant distraction that negatively impacts students’ semester GPAs. Fifteen years ago, Bowman et al. (2010) found that media multitasking through SNS affected both reading quality and reading time. Kirschner and Karpinski (2010) found a correlation between SNS use and lower GPA, particularly when students engaged in disruptive multitasking, and other studies have found similar results (Karpinski et al., 2013; Kirschner & Karpinski, 2010; Judd, 2014; Junco, 2012a; Junco & Cotten, 2012). Waite et al. (2018) found that media multitasking during academic presentations impaired lower-order learning and note-taking quality, but had no significant effect on higher-order learning. Quality note-taking improved performance, partially mediating the negative impact of multitasking on lower-order learning outcomes.

More specifically, a meta-analysis by Liu et al. (2017) found a significant negative effect of social media use on academic performance (d = -0.08). Three meta-analyses (72 studies) reported that the effects of FaceTime and social media on academic performance were d = -0.07, indicating a negative impact on learning (Hamilton & Hattie, 2021). A meta- analysis based on 39 primary studies shows that the presence of mobile phones in classrooms indicate a clear negative effect on learning (d= -0.34) (Hamilton & Hattie, 2021). Kates et al. (2018) examined the relationship between mobile phone use and student academic achievement, addressing inconsistencies in previous research regarding its effects on learning outcomes. A meta-analysis was conducted on studies published between 2008 and 2017, focusing on the impact of normal smartphone use (excluding educational applications) on academic performance. The meta-analysis found an overall negative effect of mobile phone use on academic outcomes (r = −0.162, 95% CI: −0.196 to −0.128).

Chen et al. (2025) carried out a meta-analysis building on previous work (Liu et al., 2017; Kates et al., 2018) by synthesizing evidence from 27 randomized controlled experiments, analyzing 55 effect sizes from 2,245 participants, and providing a precise estimate of the impact of mobile phone distraction on students’ immediate recall scores. The key findings are: overall, mobile phone distraction has a medium negative effect on immediate recall (Hedges’ g = −0.65, 95% CI [−0.81, −0.49]), and the impact is even stronger for lecture recall, with a nearly large negative effect (Hedges’ g = −0.70, 95% CI [−0.86, −0.54]). Gender significantly moderates the effect: “That is, controlling for other variables, while the estimated effect size for female participants is 0.93, the estimated effect size for male participants is only 0.93 +.67 = 0.26, as highlighted in bold in the two rows of the table” (p. 6), which shows that it harms females significantly more than males. These findings highlight the substantial negative impact of mobile phone distractions on learning.

A somewhat under-communicated aspect is that this can be viewed in light of the learning loss students may experience over time. Considering that a typical school year contributes an effect size of d = 0.40 to learning (Hattie & Timperley, 2007), one could estimate a relative reduction of, for example, approximately 17.5% in expected learning progress (with d=−0.07). However, given the complexities of effect size interpretations, further longitudinal research is needed to establish the long-term implications of these findings on learning trajectories. This might be relevant to consider since our studies among high school students have shown that digital distractions, such as social media use in classrooms, negatively affect learning outcomes and are associated with socioeconomic background (Krumsvik & Jones, 2015; Moltudal et al., 2019; Krumsvik et al., 2020). We estimated an average learning loss of d = −0.13, corresponding to a 32.5% reduction in expected learning outcomes for a school year. Variations between student groups revealed that those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds experienced the most significant losses, a pattern mirrored among teachers (N = 2,583). We also found that students with higher levels of digital competence engaged in less off-task behaviour on smartphones and laptops in classrooms, while extensive screen time in general was linked to increased off-task behaviour when controlling for other variables (Krumsvik et al., 2020). These media multitasking and digital distraction phenomena might contribute to social reproduction in schools.

However, a systematic review of 700 studies indicates that such digital distractions and media multitasking have received relatively little attention internationally (Meinokat & Wagner, 2022). Van den Beemt et al. (2019) similarly found in their literature review those digital distractions, such as social media use in classrooms, negatively impact learning, but the field still faces significant knowledge gaps. Dacosta (2021) found that some student groups were vulnerable to digital distractions like texting in class and wished mobile phone bans in school. Several other studies indicate that students are highly aware of the distractions that mobile phones can cause during learning periods (Magnusson et al., 2017; Porter et al., 2016; Roberts, 2019; Tran, 2021; Walker, 2013; Wike, 2020). This underscores a shared concern regarding the presence of mobile phones in the classroom, as students themselves recognize the potential for distraction and its impact on their ability to focus and engage in learning activities. Since most of these distractions are tied to algorithm-generated technology exposure through smartphones and social media, addressing them in the context of information processing or cognitive learning theories seems to be crucial. This can also be understood considering the general trend in most meta-analyses on the effects of ICT, laptops, and tablets, which highlight digital distractions as one of several challenges with technology implementation (Tamim et al., 2011; Sung et al., 2016; Archer et al., 2014; Zheng et al., 2016; Tamim et al., 2015a, b). Consequently, an increasing number of groups in society are advocating for mobile phone bans in schools. But what does the current state of knowledge say about such restrictions?

Several studies have investigated the impact of mobile phone use and phone bans on students’ academic performance, with mixed results. Beland and Murphy’s (2016) research on English schools found that banning mobile phones significantly improved high-stakes exam performance, especially among lower-achieving students, indicating that unrestricted phone use can be detrimental for certain groups. However, this study relied on data from 2001 to 2011, before smartphones became widespread and social media platforms like Instagram were prevalent. By contrast, Kessel et al. (2020) examined a similar policy in Sweden between 1997 and 2018 but found no notable effects on test and exam results. Although their timeframe included years when smartphones were more common, it also encompassed a period (1997–2007) that preceded the smartphone’s invention, and the study did not account for differences between subgroups such as gender.

In a broader meta-analysis, Sunday et al. (2021) concluded that smartphone addiction negatively impacts academic performance, suggesting that excessive phone use can develop into a behavioural addiction with detrimental effects on learning. This aligns with Mendoza et al.’s (2018) findings among psychology students, where the mere presence of a mobile phone in class reduced attention, memory, and overall learning, especially when students experienced nomophobia. These studies underscore that while mobile technology can offer educational benefits, its unstructured use may pose significant challenges to student engagement and achievement.

In Abrahamsson’s 2023 doctoral dissertation, which is the first to examine the effects of mobile phone restrictions in causal statistical models in 119 Norwegian schools, she reveals that school performance in mathematics for girls increases by 0.25 standard deviations, while the overall grade point average improves by 0.10 standard deviations. The effect is particularly clear for girls from low socioeconomic backgrounds, whereas no measurable effect is found for those from high socioeconomic backgrounds (Abrahamsson, 2023).

The recent scoping review from Campbell et al. (2024) found mixed results regarding the impact of mobile phone bans on student learning and academic achievement. Four studies reported a positive effect of phone bans on academic performance, but these effects were mainly observed among students from disadvantaged backgrounds or those with lower academic achievements. Other studies found no significant differences in academic outcomes even though there were mobile phone restrictions (this may be related to how such mobile phone bans are implemented—ranging from strict enforcement in some schools to more liberal practices in other schools). This suggests that blanket bans may not necessarily improve learning outcomes but could be more relevant for specific student groups. The study recommends a nuanced approach, integrating mobile phones as learning tools with guidelines for responsible use rather than enforcing total bans.

Goodyear et al. (2025) study examined the impact of school phone policies on adolescents’ mental health and screen time. It included 1,227 students (ages 12–15) from 30 English secondary schools, with 20 enforcing restrictive policies (no recreational phone use) and 10 allowing phone use. The findings showed no significant difference in mental well-being (measured by WEMWBS) between students in restrictive and permissive schools. However, students in restrictive schools spent less time on phones and social media during school hours, while overall usage on weekdays and weekends remained similar. The study does not support the effectiveness of phone bans in improving adolescent mental health and suggests that such policies require further refinement.

However, one challenge with both Campbell et al. (2024) and Goodyear et al.’s (2025) knowledge summaries is that a mobile phone ban is not a clear-cut concept, and there is variation in how primary studies define this term, how schools interpret it, and so on. This means that the ecological validity of this type of research should be strengthened to ensure that the findings are more valid and that the studies measure what they are intended to measure.

The UNESCO report (UNESCO, 2023) shows that, globally, nearly one in four countries have introduced rules on mobile phone use in schools through laws or guidelines, and UNESCO recommends that the remaining countries consider doing the same. More specifically, 13 percent of countries have laws and 14 percent have guidelines that prohibit mobile phones in schools. Full or partial bans have been introduced in Latvia, Mexico, Portugal, Spain, France, Belgium, Switzerland, and the United States, as well as in Ontario (Canada) and Scotland (United Kingdom) (UNESCO, 2023). Several schools and universities in the United States have previously banned TikTok and other mobile-based platforms (UNESCO, 2023) and recently, the U.S. government has banned TikTok in the United States (Supreme Court of The United States, 2025). In 2024, Norway introduced recommendations stating that mobile phones should not be used during school hours in primary schools and only during breaks in upper secondary schools. Additionally, an assessment is underway to determine whether an age limit should be introduced for social media and whether a ban on mobile phones in schools should be implemented (Utdanningsdirektoratet, 2024).

With the increasing presence of AI-driven technologies, the challenges of media multitasking and digital distractions in learning environments might evolve. AI-powered applications have the potential to enhance education by offering tailored support and adaptive feedback. However, they might also introduce new layers of distraction, as students may be tempted to shift between productive and counterproductive AI interactions, further fragmenting their cognitive focus. AI may both mitigate and exacerbate learning loss, depending on its implementation. To address this, we need to identify research that deals with students’ metacognitive strategies to navigate AI-enhanced environments without compromising deep learning and knowledge retention.

Taken as a whole, it is understandable that an increasing number of countries are relying on the precautionary principle as a basis for their policy of this field. Many recognize that there are worrying correlations, both in Norway and internationally, that require societal vigilance. UNESCO’s ”Precautionary Principle” (UNESCO, 2005), the EU’s ”On the Precautionary Principle” (EU, 2000), and the Norwegian Public Health Act (Ministry of Health and Care Services, 2011) all state that:

The precautionary principle applies when there is significant scientific uncertainty, and when scenarios or models based on scientific reasoning indicate that harmful effects are possible (p. 50).

As observed, there may be a certain learning loss and health risk for vulnerable groups if society fails to take any action, and applying the precautionary principle could be a low-cost measure with potential health benefits. While it is essential to respect both sides of the debate and avoid absolute certainty in either direction, authorities, society, researchers, and the research community have a duty to remain vigilant and transparent in acknowledging that social media and extensive screen time cannot be ruled out as factors influencing various aspects of learning, learning loss, and particularly young girls’ mental health. It is important to address the knowledge gaps and map studies about the effect of collective regulations on learning and learning losses among students in secondary and upper secondary school.

Conclusion

As we have seen in this Editorial, a growing body of meta-analytical research consistently demonstrates that mobile phone use negatively impacts student learning and academic performance. Liu et al. (2017) found a small but significant negative effect of social media use on academic performance. Similarly, Hamilton and Hattie (2021) reported that the effects of FaceTime and social media use on academic performance were negative. Another meta-analysis of 39 studies found that simply having mobile phones present in classrooms significantly hindered learning (Hamilton & Hattie, 2021). Kates et al. (2018) conducted a meta-analysis on the impact of normal smartphone use (excluding educational applications) on academic performance, revealing a clear negative effect. Chen et al. (2025) expanded on previous research by analyzing 27 randomized controlled experiments, showing that mobile phone distraction has a medium negative effect on immediate recall and an even stronger negative effect on lecture recall. Their findings also indicate that mobile phone distraction disproportionately affects female students more than males. Taken together, particularly these meta-analyses provide a robust and sufficient knowledge base to support the recommendation that mobile phones should not be used in classroom instruction. The cumulative evidence indicates that both the presence and active use of mobile phones hinder learning, reduce immediate recall, and negatively affect academic achievement.

The findings from these meta-analyses have strong resonance with the underlying Cognitive theory of multimedia learning (Mayer & Moreno, 2003; Mayer, 2014) and cognitive load theory (Sweller, 1988), which emphasizes that human cognitive capacity is limited and that extraneous distractions—such as mobile phone use—can overload working memory and impair learning. According to CLT, learning is most effective when cognitive resources are allocated to relevant instructional material rather than to unrelated tasks. The observed negative effects of mobile phone presence and use in classrooms align with this principle, as they introduce extraneous cognitive load by dividing students’ attention between academic tasks and non-relevant stimuli such as social media, texting, or notifications. The substantial negative impact on immediate recall (Hedges’ g = -0.65) and lecture recall (Hedges’ g = -0.70), as found by Chen et al. (2025), further supports this framework by demonstrating that mobile phone distractions interfere with the encoding and retention of new information. Similarly, the more moderate but consistent negative effects observed across other meta-analyses (Liu et al., 2017; Hamilton & Hattie, 2021; Kates et al., 2018) reinforce the notion that divided attention leads to cognitive overload, reducing learning efficiency and academic performance. Given this strong theoretical and empirical foundation, these findings provide compelling evidence for limiting mobile phone use in classroom instruction. By minimizing distractions and reducing extraneous cognitive load, schools can avoid a severe source for learning loss and create optimal learning environments that support students’ ability to process and retain information effectively.

Given the consistency of these findings across multiple studies and contexts, restricting mobile phone use in classroom settings appears to be a justified and evidence-based policy decision to enhance student learning outcomes.