Research. Relationships.
Real Connection.
It started with a change happening in schools across Indiana. Phones were being put away. Classrooms were becoming phone-free. And we started wondering: What happens next?
Removing a phone may change the environment. But what happens to the relationships, identities, and everyday interactions that have developed alongside it? That question became the beginning of our Honors in Action journey.
Our project began with Phi Theta Kappa's Honors Study Topic
Honors in Action challenges students to investigate a complex issue through academic research, draw conclusions from that research, and use what they learn to develop meaningful action in their communities.
Our chapter selected Theme 1, which asks:
"What influence will relationships and identity have on how people interact with an ever-changing world in the future?"
The question felt especially relevant to a generation growing up in a world where relationships, communication, self-expression, and identity increasingly move between digital and face-to-face spaces. And in Indiana, that world was changing.
Our Question
As schools moved toward phone-free learning environments, our chapter wanted to understand more than whether removing phones might reduce distraction. We wanted to know what happens between people when the phones are gone.
"How do structurally mandated phone-free environments impact adolescent identity formation and the development of authentic peer relationships in an increasingly digital society?"
We didn't begin with a program we wanted to create. We began with something we wanted to understand.
We Started with the Research
We examined the issue from multiple perspectives rather than assuming that phones or social media were inherently good or bad. Our chapter reviewed eight peer-reviewed academic sources focused on two major areas:
Identity Formation
How do smartphones and social media influence the ways adolescents explore, express, compare, and understand themselves?
Peer Relationships
What happens to communication, social interaction, and peer connection when schools create phone-free environments?
Our literature review included studies representing the United States · United Kingdom · Australia · Spain
Major Sources of Understanding
Academic Research
What have researchers around the world discovered?
Data & Policy Analysis
What do the data reveal, and how is policy responding?
Educator Perspectives
What are educators experiencing here at home?
Together, they allowed us to move beyond simply asking: "Should students have phones in school?"
What do we do with the space that's left when the phone is gone?
What We Learned
Our investigation did not lead us to conclude that technology itself was the problem. Digital environments can provide opportunities for communication, identity exploration, community, and belonging.
But our research also showed that digital environments can influence how adolescents present themselves, compare themselves with others, communicate with peers, experience conflict, and divide their attention between online and face-to-face interaction.
Because our project wasn't becoming:
PHONES ARE BAD.
It was becoming:
RELATIONSHIPS NEED SPACE.
Comparing State Policy Approach
As Indiana prepared to move from an instructional-time restriction to a bell-to-bell school-day policy, our chapter wanted to understand whether Indiana's approach reflected a broader change in school policy.
We compared Indiana with Utah, Arkansas, and Florida—states that also enacted statewide student-device restrictions but structured them differently.
The comparison showed that "phone-free" can describe very different policy environments. Indiana emphasizes inaccessible storage or no-device policies; Utah combines school-hours restrictions with greater local discretion; Arkansas uses a broad bell-to-bell framework implemented through district policies; and Florida varies its restrictions by grade level.
That comparison helped us separate two questions:
How do schools restrict access to phones?
What happens socially when that access changes?
Our Action grew from the second question.
From Published Research to Local Experience
Our literature review helped us understand what researchers were finding about adolescent identity, social media, peer relationships, and phone-free school environments.
But our chapter wanted to understand what these issues looked like closer to home.
Alpha Rho Sigma conducted five structured interviews with Indiana professionals whose work provided direct experience with students, educational environments, technology use, and the transition toward phone-use restrictions.
We asked about more than phones.
The conversations explored:
- Student attention and engagement
- Face-to-face communication
- Social media and identity
- Peer relationships
- Student adjustment
- Implementation challenges
- Educational technology
- Family and community expectations
- What schools may need as phone-free environments become more common
The interviews did not replace our peer-reviewed research.
They added another perspective to it.
RESEARCH SHOWED US THE PATTERNS.
POLICY SHOWED US THE STRUCTURAL CHANGE.
OUR INTERVIEWS HELPED US SEE THE HUMAN EXPERIENCE WITHIN IT.
Some participants described concerns about distraction, online self-presentation, enforcement, and student dependence on immediate access to technology.
Others shared observations of increased classroom engagement, more direct communication, and students beginning to interact differently when phones were no longer immediately available.
The interviews also reminded us that implementation would not be simple. Removing access to a device can create new opportunities, but it can also introduce anxiety, resistance, enforcement challenges, and uncertainty about what students should do instead.
That helped our chapter refine the question behind our Action:
What happens after the phone is put away?
The Problem We Identified
Schools and families may create phone-free space without necessarily having resources to help adolescents navigate what comes next. Removing a device can create an opportunity for face-to-face interaction. But an opportunity is not the same as an outcome.
Students may still need opportunities to:
The Turning Point
We stopped asking only: "What happens when schools take phones away?"
And started asking: "How can we help people make meaningful use of the space that phone-free environments create?"
That question became our bridge from: Research → Action
Connect Phone-Free
Our research didn't lead us toward another rule. It led us toward resources. Resources designed to help educators, families, and students turn phone-free moments into opportunities for reflection, conversation, and connection.
Built from the Research
The Action wasn't added after the research. It grew out of it.
Our educators and community partners helped us understand the problem from perspectives research alone couldn't provide. Their experiences challenged our assumptions, informed our understanding, and helped connect our investigation to the people our Action was intended to serve.
Creating Something Isn't the End
One of the most important questions remained: Did it make a difference? That's why feedback is built directly into the project.
Educators
- What worked in practice?
- What helped students engage?
- What needs improvement?
Families
- Did the resources create conversation?
- Did they encourage reflection about digital habits?
- What would make them more useful?
Students
- What did they notice about themselves?
- What felt different without the phone?
- Did anything change about how they interacted with others?
We'll look at: Participation, Resource use, Feedback responses, Reported usefulness, Student reflection, Educator observations, Family experiences, What worked, What didn't, and What we learned.
From Research to Relationships
Our project started with phones. But it didn't stay there. It became a project about: Identity. Relationships. Belonging. Communication. Community. And the increasingly complicated space between our digital and face-to-face lives.
We don't pretend to have the final answer. Instead, our research led us to one place where we could begin:
Create the space.
Give people something meaningful to do with it.
Listen to what happens next.
Research revealed an opportunity. Our community helped us understand the need. Our research shaped our Action. And the people who use it will help us understand its impact.