Henderson and Zimbardo
Henderson and Zimbardo (2000) in a concern to examine differences between students at the high school and college level conducted a research on a sample of students from 2 schools, private and public versus another sample of university
students. The students were 15 also categorized into shy and non-shy students. Time spent using various types of technology in particular activities was defined in terms of categories denoting an average range of the hours of use. Theprevalence of mobile technologies is in itself a motivator to exploit them for learning. Mobile technology are already widespread among teens.(NOP 2001).
Matthews (2004) concluded that Australian adolescents do not make more than 5 calls a day on average and 85% of them used SMS less than 5 times a day. Studies also show gender related differences among young users of mobile phone. Aoki and Downes (2004) focused on the behavioral and psychological aspects of cell phone usage among college students. They tried to find the reasons behind why a technology is adopted in a particular way. They identified several attitudinal factors based on the exploratory study including, necessity in modern times, cost efficiency when compared to landline phone, safety or security, and dependency. The study also endeavored to look at the motivational and behavioral characteristics of mobile phone usage. The authors tried to combine their results and the result of previous research to find the trends in usage by the youth, ?why college students in the US use the cell phone, what they think of the technology, and how they use it (p. 352).
James and Drennan (2005) conducted a study on Australian students and identified a higher usage rate of 1.5 hours – 5hours a day. They also highlighted the financial costs, emotional stress, damaged relationships and falling literacy as adverse consequences of excessive usage. An additional consideration is that many people check their mobile phone regularly for missed messages or calls (Walsh etal., 2008a) and keep their phone in close proximity (Walsh & White, 2006) without actually using their phone; behaviors„which that are unlikely to be captured in measures of mobile phone use. Thus, measures relying on time or frequency of mobile Phone use alone may not gauge adequately the extent to which people interact with their phones. To overcome this limitation, some recent research has developed alternative measures of mobile