When Phones Go Out the Window, Learning Comes In the Door
Around the world smartphone bans in schools are being implemented in an attempt to protect students from distraction and digital overload. But do they work?
A new large-scale experiment, published in 2025 entitled Removing Phones from Classrooms Improves Academic Performance, offers the clearest answer so far. Conducted by Alp Sungu (University of Pennsylvania), Pradeep Kumar Choudhury (Jawaharlal Nehru University), and Andreas Bjerre-Nielsen (University of Copenhagen), the study provides rare causal evidence that physically removing phones from classrooms leads to better academic results and more.
The researchers carried out a randomized controlled trial across ten higher education institutions in the Indian state of Odisha with nearly 17,000 students. Each academic department within a college was randomly assigned either to a “phone-ban” condition, in which students had to deposit their phones in a wooden box at the start of every class, or to a control condition, where phone use remained unrestricted. Because the randomization occurred at the department level, students in a given major and year experienced the same policy in almost all of their courses for an entire semester.
Over the course of several months, the researchers collected official grade records and attendance data, conducted two waves of student surveys, and carried out almost 8,000 unannounced classroom observations. The design ensured that any differences in academic outcomes could confidently be attributed to the phone ban itself rather than to pre-existing differences between groups.
Better Grades, Especially for the Struggling
The results were unambiguous. Students in phone-ban classrooms achieved significantly higher grades than their peers with unrestricted phone access. After controlling for prior academic performance, the average improvement was 0.086 standard deviations in GPA. In the language of educational research, that is a moderate but meaningful effect—comparable to the gains produced by major teacher professional development programs or by moving from an average to a highly effective teacher. In other words, collecting phones at the start of class had an academic impact similar to some of the best-known, and far more expensive, educational interventions.
The improvement, however, was not evenly distributed across all students. The largest benefits came to those students who had previously performed below average, among first-year students who needed to acclimatize themselves to university, and among those enrolled in non-STEM disciplines. For high-achieving students, second- or third-year students, and those in science and engineering, the gains were smaller or statistically insignificant. The authors interpret this as evidence that banning phones disproportionately helps those who are most vulnerable to distraction and least practiced at regulating their own attention. It is, in other words, an equity-enhancing intervention: it raises achievement for all while narrowing the gap (counteracts the Matthew effect) between stronger and weaker students.
Interestingly, there was no change in attendance rates. The policy did not make students attend more classes; rather, it improved what happened once they were there. The mechanism seems to lie in attention and focus, not in simple presence.
Other Effects
One might expect students to resent such restrictions. In a culture where the smartphone has become a constant companion, handing it over at the door could feel intrusive or infantilizing. Yet the opposite occurred. After spending a semester in phone-free classrooms, students actually became more supportive of phone bans and more convinced of their benefits. Phone-free students scored 0.17 standard deviations higher in support for phone bans, 0.20 higher in perceived benefits, and 0.19 lower in their preference for unrestricted phone use. The experience itself convinced them. This pattern means that the benefits of phone bans may be self-reinforcing. Once students personally experience the advantages of distraction-free learning, their resistance declines and their willingness to comply increases. The result is a virtuous cycle—positive outcomes foster greater acceptance, which in turn makes sustained implementation easier.
The surveys also revealed a mild increase in “fear of missing out” (FOMO). Students in the ban group worried slightly more about being disconnected from their social networks during class hours. However, this effect was small and had no measurable consequences for well-being, motivation, or overall phone use. Students did not compensate by spending more time on their phones outside of class, nor did they experience more online harassment. The authors suggest that such minor FOMO might disappear entirely if the policy were applied across entire schools or systems, rather than only in certain departments.
The effects of the phone ban were not limited to grades and attitudes. Through a series of unannounced classroom observations, research assistants documented visible changes in behavior and atmosphere. In phone-free classrooms, students engaged in less idle chatter and fewer disruptive behaviors. Teachers, too, appeared more engaged: they spent more time on instructional activities and less time managing distractions. Even though the teachers themselves were not formally subject to the ban, their own phone use dropped significantly in treatment classrooms.
Observers did note an intriguing paradox. Students in phone-ban classes sometimes appeared more distracted, fidgeting or reacting to environmental noises. Yet these same students did not report feeling more distracted. The authors interpret this as an “attention reallocation” effect. When the main source of distraction is removed, smaller distractions become more noticeable to an outside observer, even if students themselves feel more focused. In any case, this apparent paradox did not prevent substantial learning gains.
Taken together, these observations suggest that phone-free classrooms become calmer and more purposeful learning environments. Without the constant buzz of digital interference, students and teachers alike devote more of their energy to the task at hand.
Conclusion
This randomized experiment provides clear, large-scale, causal evidence that physically removing smartphones from classrooms improves academic outcomes, particularly for the students who need it most, and does so without harming well-being or motivation. The intervention is also remarkably cheap. Apart from the wooden phone boxes—crafted from recycled materials—no new technology or training was required. In the world of education policy, few interventions deliver such measurable gains for so little cost.
In the end, the lesson of this study is disarmingly simple. When phones leave the classroom, learning improves. Students don’t become less happy or less motivated; instead, they focus better, learn more, and grow more supportive of the very rule that helps them do so. Teachers, too, seem to regain a quieter, more engaged space for instruction. And the students who stand to gain the most are precisely those who most need the help.
Maybe the smartest educational technology policy isn’t to add more technology, but to take some of it away. Sometimes, maybe less is more!
Sungu, A., Choudhury, P. K., & Bjerre-Nielsen, A. (2025). Removing phones from classrooms improves academic performance. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5370727 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5370727
