Behind Connect Phone-Free
Connect Phone-Free began with questions—not conclusions. Before deciding what our Action should become, Alpha Rho Sigma investigated how adolescents' digital environments intersect with two important parts of development: Identity and Relationships.
Our Research Question
Our investigation asked how adolescent cell phone and social media use can influence:
Identity Formation
How adolescents explore, express, and understand who they are.
Peer Relationships
How adolescents communicate, connect, and develop relationships—particularly when school environments become more phone-free.
Our research was conducted within Theme 1 of Phi Theta Kappa's Honors Study Topic: What's Next? Imagining the Future.
How We Investigated It
Four Sources of Understanding
Peer-Reviewed Research
Eight academic sources examining adolescent identity, social media, peer relationships, and phone-restricted school environments.
Indiana Data
2023 Indiana YRBS, 2025 Indiana SEOW report, and national CDC YRBS comparisons examining adolescent digital engagement and behavioral-health patterns.
Policy Analysis
Comparison of student-device policies in Indiana, Arkansas, Florida, and Utah, highlighting how states approach phone access during the school day.
Educator Perspectives
Five structured interviews with Indiana educators and administrators.
What We Found
The answer wasn't "phones are bad."
One of the clearest conclusions from our research was also one of the most important: Adolescents' digital experiences are complicated. Digital environments can provide opportunities for identity exploration, creativity, friendship, belonging, community, communication, and self-expression. At the same time, our research identified concerns involving curated self-presentation, social comparison, external validation, continual peer evaluation, digital conflict, and competition between digital interaction and some forms of face-to-face interaction. Both realities can exist at the same time.
The Indiana Context
Indiana data allowed us to examine adolescent behavioral health alongside patterns of digital engagement closer to home. Drawing from the 2023 Indiana Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS), the 2025 Indiana State Epidemiological Outcomes Workgroup (SEOW) report on the impacts of social media on adolescent behavioral health, and national CDC YRBS comparisons, we examined indicators involving screen exposure, social-media use, cyberbullying, mental health, persistent sadness, suicide-related behaviors, and school avoidance.
The analysis identified high levels of digital engagement alongside concerning behavioral-health indicators. These patterns were considered alongside research associating problematic social-media use with emotional dysregulation, low self-worth, social comparison, isolation, cyberbullying, and other behavioral-health concerns.
Mental Health
Students who reported their mental health was most of the time or always not good.
Persistent Sadness
Students reporting persistent sadness or hopelessness lasting two or more weeks.
Considered Suicide
Students who seriously considered attempting suicide during the previous 12 months.
Cyberbullying
Students electronically bullied during the previous 12 months.
Bullied at School
Students bullied on school property during the previous 12 months.
School Avoidance
Students who missed school because they felt unsafe.
Indiana vs. National: Key Indicators
Percentage of high school students reporting each indicator
- Indiana
- National
What the Patterns Mean
Nearly half of Indiana students reported persistent sadness or hopelessness, while one in four seriously considered suicide. These symptoms are consistent with psychological effects associated in the research with problematic social-media use, including emotional dysregulation, low self-worth, and increased isolation.
The relationship is especially important to our investigation of identity and belonging. Adolescents experiencing social exclusion or lacking strong support systems may turn to social media in search of connection, while digital environments can also introduce social comparison, external validation, cyberbullying, and other pressures explored elsewhere in our research.
Peer Conflict Extends Across Digital and Face-to-Face Space
Indiana students report higher rates of both electronic bullying (20.7%) and bullying on school property (23.0%) than national averages. Together, these indicators show that peer conflict is not confined to either online or in-person environments. Adolescents move between both social spaces, and the relationships, pressures, and conflicts they experience can move with them. This matters to our investigation because removing phones during the school day changes where and how students interact, but it does not automatically resolve the underlying dynamics between peers. Phone-free environments may reduce immediate access to digital channels during school hours, while also creating more opportunities for direct, face-to-face interaction. Supporting students in navigating those interactions is therefore just as important as limiting access to the device. The larger question isn't only where peer conflict occurs—it's how we help students build healthier ways to connect in both environments.
Association ≠ Causation
The surveillance data identify patterns in adolescent digital engagement and behavioral health. They do not independently establish that social-media use caused the reported behavioral-health outcomes. Our conclusions consider these data alongside research examining associations between problematic social-media use and adolescent well-being.
This limitation distinguishes association from demonstrated causation. It does not disconnect social-media use from the analysis.
Four States. Four Approaches.
Phone-free school policy is not one-size-fits-all.
Our chapter compared statewide student-device policies in Indiana, Utah, Arkansas, and Florida. All four states restrict student access to personal devices, but the policies differ in when restrictions apply, how devices are stored, how educational use is handled, which exceptions are required, and how much implementation authority remains with local schools.
Indiana
Bell-to-bellBeginning July 1, 2026, Indiana requires schools to address personal wireless devices throughout the entire school day rather than only during instructional time.
Schools must choose between a no-device policy or a storage policy requiring devices to remain powered off, stored away, and inaccessible throughout the school day.
Teacher-directed educational use generally must occur on school-supplied devices. A transitional provision permits qualifying school-sanctioned devices through June 30, 2028.
Indiana establishes a highly structured statewide framework governing both access and storage.
Utah
School-hours restrictionUtah prohibits use of cellphones, qualifying smartwatches, and covered emerging technologies during school hours, including instructional time, lunch, recess, and transitions.
Unlike Indiana, Utah does not impose one statewide physical storage method. Local education agencies retain substantial authority over storage, enforcement, additional restrictions, and permitted circumstances.
Utah combines a broad school-hours restriction with significant local implementation flexibility.
Arkansas
Bell-to-bellArkansas's Bell to Bell, No Cell Act requires public schools to restrict possession and prohibit use of personal electronic devices during the school day.
Districts determine much of the operational implementation, while policies must satisfy state requirements. Arkansas has also supported secure-storage approaches through state-sponsored pilot funding.
District policies are submitted for state review and published for public access.
Arkansas establishes a broad statewide prohibition while leaving significant implementation decisions to local districts.
Florida
Grade-dependentFlorida uses a different model from the other three states.
Elementary and middle-school students may not use wireless communication devices during the school day.
High-school students are generally restricted during instructional time rather than throughout the entire school day, and teacher-directed educational use is permitted under specified circumstances.
High-school teachers must designate an area for devices during instructional periods.
Florida's policy changes according to grade level rather than applying one uniform temporal standard across K–12.
What the Four States Have in Common
State-Level Restrictions
All four states establish statewide requirements governing student device policies.
Health & Disability Exceptions
The policies preserve accommodations involving disability and health needs, including IEP and Section 504 circumstances, although the specific statutory provisions vary by state.
Emergency Access
Each state provides circumstances in which device restrictions yield to emergency or safety needs.
Local Implementation
State law establishes the framework, but local school systems continue to play an important role in implementation, enforcement, communication, and—in several states—storage decisions.
Where the Policies Diverge
When
Indiana, Utah, and Arkansas use broadly school-day or school-hours approaches. Florida distinguishes between elementary/middle school and high school.
Where the Phone Goes
Indiana requires either a no-device approach or inaccessible storage. Arkansas restricts possession and use while allowing local implementation choices. Utah leaves storage largely to local policy. Florida requires designated classroom device areas for high-school instructional periods while otherwise relying substantially on district rules.
When Technology Can Become an Instructional Tool
Indiana generally moves teacher-directed educational use toward school-supplied devices. Florida expressly permits teacher-directed high-school educational use under its statutory conditions. Utah gives local education agencies greater flexibility over educational exceptions.
Who Makes the Implementation Decisions
The balance between state requirements and local discretion differs considerably among the four states.
The Finding That Shaped Our Action
Our policy analysis revealed something important: creating a phone-free environment and creating a connected environment are not the same thing.
Laws and school policies can determine when students put devices away. They can establish storage rules, exceptions, enforcement structures, and expectations for the school day.
But policy alone does not determine what fills the space that becomes available.
That distinction became important to Alpha Rho Sigma's Honors in Action project.
Our Action therefore focuses not on advocating for or against a particular cellphone policy, but on helping educators, families, and students intentionally use phone-free opportunities for conversation, reflection, collaboration, and authentic interpersonal connection.
Phone-free creates the space.
Connection requires something more.
What the Educators Added
Data tells us what was reported. The educators that live it helps us understand.
Engagement
Potential changes in classroom attention and participation.
Interaction
Opportunities for students to communicate more directly.
Implementation
The importance of consistency, expectations, and practical enforcement.
Communication
Concerns about how students and families communicate during the school day.
Adjustment
Recognition that students may not respond to restrictions in the same way.
Unintended Consequences
Removing a device can alter routines and social environments in ways that aren't always predictable.
Voices From the Field
To connect published research with real-world experience, Alpha Rho Sigma conducted structured interviews with Indiana professionals whose work provides direct experience with students, educational environments, technology use, and phone-use policies.
Across the interviews, recurring themes emerged around attention, identity, face-to-face communication, student adjustment, and the practical challenges of creating phone-free environments.
In Their Words
“The kids are not talking. They're on their phones.”
Attention
Interview participants described smartphones as a recurring source of distraction and discussed changes they had observed in students' attention and classroom engagement.
“I've had more engagement. The students are paying attention.”
These observations echoed our literature review's emphasis on the role the surrounding environment can play in attention, engagement, and opportunities for meaningful interaction.
Identity
Participants described adolescents navigating social comparison, online self-presentation, and concern about how others perceive them.
“They always have the need to always look perfect, be perfect.”
The observation closely reflected findings in our identity research concerning curated self-presentation, social comparison, and external validation.
Connection
Participants described communication becoming increasingly digital and fewer spontaneous opportunities for students to interact face-to-face when phones are immediately available.
“Talking face to face builds social skills.”
This theme reinforced our research into authentic peer relationships and the developmental importance of opportunities for direct interpersonal interaction.
Implementation
Participants also made clear that creating a phone-free environment involves more than establishing a rule. Interviews raised questions about enforcement, consistency, communication, student adjustment, educational technology, accommodations, and modeling appropriate technology use.
“I think the policing of the phones is gonna be near impossible.”
These concerns helped shift our focus from phone restriction alone toward supporting the people who must navigate the transition.
These reflections are qualitative observations from interview participants. They are not statistical evidence and do not prove that phone-free policies cause particular outcomes. All our educator participants remain anonymous.
A Change One Educator Could See
“It's like kids are coming out of their fog.”
One interview participant described noticing a change during passing periods as students adjusted to a phone-free school environment. Instead of immediately turning to their phones, the participant observed more students looking around, talking with one another, and interacting with their peers.
The observation gave our chapter a vivid picture of the opportunity we were investigating: when immediate access to a phone changes, the social environment can change too.
THE POLICY CAN CHANGE ACCESS.
WHAT FILLS THE SPACE IS THE NEXT QUESTION.
Research Met Reality
What the Literature Told Us
Adolescent identity and peer relationships develop within social environments. Our literature review highlighted recurring concerns involving social comparison, external validation, digital communication, and reduced opportunities for authentic face-to-face interaction.
What the Data Showed Us
Indiana youth data placed those concerns in a more local context, revealing patterns of high digital engagement alongside behavioral-health and peer challenges. Considered with the literature, the data reinforced the connections among digital experiences, well-being, belonging, and the ways Indiana adolescents interact with one another.
What Policy Showed Us
Our policy analysis showed that states are increasingly changing the school environment itself by limiting access to personal devices during portions or all of the school day. However, legislation establishes the restriction; it does not by itself teach students how to navigate the social and behavioral transition that follows.
What We Heard
Our interviews brought the issue into the lived educational environment. Participants described distraction, changes in communication, pressures surrounding online identity, increased engagement when phones were put away, and practical concerns surrounding implementation and student adjustment.
Our research led us to a larger question:
What happens after the phone is put away?
A phone-free policy can create the opportunity for connection. Students, educators, and families still need support in learning what to do with that opportunity.
That question became the foundation of Connect Phone-Free.
Explore the ToolkitsPutting It Together
When we synthesized the literature, Indiana data, and educator perspectives, our findings didn't lead us toward a simple verdict about technology. They led us toward a more useful understanding:
Digital environments are meaningful parts of many adolescents' social and identity development.
Those environments can provide genuine opportunities for connection, creativity, belonging, and expression.
They can also introduce pressures involving comparison, self-presentation, feedback, and continual peer evaluation.
Face-to-face relationships remain important environments for practicing communication and social development.
Reducing phone access can create additional opportunities for direct interaction.
But removing a phone does not determine what fills the space it leaves behind.
Don't just remove something.
Create something to put in the space.
What Our Research Does Not Say
Limitations matter.
Social media is inherently harmful. Experiences vary by person, platform, behavior, context, and type of use.
Phone use caused Indiana's behavioral-health outcomes. The surveillance data we examined do not establish that causal relationship.
Every student benefits from phone restrictions in the same way. Individual experiences vary.
Removing phones automatically improves relationships. Opportunity does not guarantee connection.
Digital friendships aren't "real." Digital environments can support meaningful relationships and belonging.
Our five educator interviews represent every Indiana school. They provide valuable practitioner perspectives—not a representative statewide sample.
Recognizing limitations doesn't weaken research. It makes our conclusions more responsible.
Our Research Continues Through the Action
Our original investigation helped us create Connect Phone-Free. Now the Action gives us another question: What happens when people actually use it? Through feedback from educators, families, and students, we can begin evaluating what happened after our research became Action.