ACTResearch|IssueBrief|March20251

HowACTMathematicsPerformanceIsRelatedtoClassroomSmartphoneDistractionsand

MathematicsAnxiety

JeffSchiel

Summary

Recentresultsfromlarge-scaletestingprograms(e.g.,theACT?test,Programmefor

InternationalStudentAssessment)showdeclinesovertimeinhighschoolstudents’

mathematicsperformance.Suchdeclinescanbeconcerningformany,includingstudents,

parents,andeducators.Severalfactorscouldberelatedtomathematicsperformancedeclines,includingtheCOVID-19pandemic,technologydistractionsinmathematicsclasses,and

mathematicsanxiety.ThisstudyinvestigatedtherelationshipbetweenACTmathematicsscoresandtwofactors:distractionsfromsmartphonesinmathematicsclassesandmathematics

anxiety.

Keyfindingsfromthestudyaredescribedbrieflybelow.

Distractionsfromsmartphonesinmathematicsclasses—whetherfromastudent’sownsmartphoneorfromthesmartphonesofotherstudents—werefoundtohaveasignificantnegativerelationshipwithsubsequentperformanceontheACTmathematicstest,evenwhenthestudycontrolledforimportantstudentbackgroundvariables(e.g.,gender,

race/ethnicity,highschoolGPA,numberofhighschoolmathematicscoursestaken).

MathematicslearninganxietyandmathematicsevaluationanxietywerebothsignificantlyandnegativelyrelatedtoACTmathematicsperformance.Thiswasevidentevenwhenstudentbackgroundvariableswerecontrolledfor.

Mathematicsisnottheonlysubjectforwhichdomain-specificanxietymightbeofconcern.Performanceinscience,asmeasuredbytheACTsciencetest,wasalsofoundtobe

significantlyandnegativelyrelatedtosciencelearninganxiety.

Introduction

Studentperformanceinmathematicsappearstohavedeclinedinthepastfewyears.Some

evidenceofthiscomesfromthe2022ProgrammeforInternationalStudentAssessment(PISA)assessment,whichwasadministeredtonearly700,00015-year-oldstudentsin81countriestoassessperformanceinreading,science,andespeciallymathematics.Itwasfoundthatthe

averagemathematicsscorehaddecreasedbyalmost15pointssincethelastassessment,

whichwasin2018.Thisdecreaseisunprecedented;until2022,nochangeintheaveragehaseverexceeded4points(OECD,2023).

CT

?2025byACTEducationCorp.Allrightsreserved.|R2435

ACTResearch|IssueBrief|March20252

CT

?2025byACTEducationCorp.Allrightsreserved.|R2435

IntheirreportofthePISAresults,theOrganisationforEconomicCo-operationand

DevelopmentstatedthatthedropinmathematicsscorepointstotheshockeffectofCOVID-19onmostcountries(OECD,2023,p.27).Theyalsostated,however,thatthepandemicmightnotbetheonlyfactorinvolved,becausescienceperformancedidnotchangesignificantly,onaverage,between2018and2022.TheaveragePISAsciencescoredecreasedbyonly2pointsduringthisperiod.

Anotherhypothesisforthedeclineinmathematicsperformancewasthattechnologyis

distractingteenagersduringtheirmathematicsclasses.PISAfoundthatstudentswhoreportedbecomingdistractedinmostorallmathematicslessonsscoredanaverageof15pointslowerinmathematicsthandidstudentswhoreportedthatthisneveroralmostneverhappened(OECD,2023).Otherstudiessupportthishypothesis,havingfoundnegativerelationshipsbetween

tertiarystudentssmartphoneuseandtheiracademicperformance.AsummaryofthefindingsofseveralsuchstudiesispresentedbyAmezandBaert(2020).

ACTmathematicsscoreshavealsodeclinedovertime.In2019,forexample,theaveragescorewas20.4.In2023,itwas19.0(ACT,2023).UnlikePISAsciencescores,however,theACT

sciencescorehasdeclinedaswell(20.6in2019,19.6in2023).DeclinesinACTscoresappeartobesmallerthanthoseinPISAscoresbecauseofthedifferentscalesusedbythetwo

assessments.TheACTscorescalerangesfrom1to36,andadeclineof1or2pointsinan

averagescorecanbesubstantive.Incomparison,PISAscorestheoreticallyhavenominimumormaximumbutinsteadarescaledtofitdistributionsthatareapproximatelynormal,withmeansaround500scorepointsandstandarddeviationsaround100scorepoints(OECD,2023).

Therefore,similar1-or2-pointdeclinesinPISAscoresgenerallyarenotsubstantive.

FactorsthatmighthavebeenexacerbatedbytheCOVID-19pandemic,suchasmathematicsanxiety,mightalsoberelatedtothemathematicsperformancedecline.Mathematicsanxietyhasbeenshowntoberelatedbothtodecreasedmathematicsperformance(Richardson&

Suinn,1972)andtoaffectedself-confidenceandclearthinkingwhenfacingamathematicsproblem,especiallyforfemalehighschoolstudents(Escalera-Chávezetal.,2017).

TheCOVID-19pandemicwasfoundtoberelatedtoasignificantincreaseinthelevelof

mathematicsanxietyinasampleofcollegestudents(Soysaletal.,2022).Inaddition,limited

accesstotechnologyandaninabilitytocommunicateadequatelywithinstructorswererelated

toincreasesinmathematicsanxietyamongcollegestudentsfollowingapandemic-driven

emergencytransitiontoremotelearning(Laniusetal.,2022).PerhapsthepandemiccontributedinasimilarwaytoincreasedmathematicsanxietyandtobothACTandPISAmathematics

scoredeclinesamonghighschoolstudents.

Thepurposeofthisstudywastoexplore1)therelationshipbetweentechnologydistractionsinmathematicsclasses,specificallythoseresultingfromtheuseofsmartphones,and

performanceontheACTmathematicstestand2)therelationshipbetweenmathematicsanxietyandperformanceontheACTmathematicstest.Inaddition,todeterminewhethersmartphonedistractionsandanxietymightberelatedtoperformanceinsubjectsotherthanmathematics,

ACTResearch|IssueBrief|March20253

CT

?2025byACTEducationCorp.Allrightsreserved.|R2435

thisstudyexploredrelationshipsamongsmartphonedistractionsinscienceclasses,scienceanxiety,andperformanceontheACTsciencetest.

Thedataforthisstudywereobtainedfromasampleofhighschoolstudentswhohadtaken

eithertheDecember2023ortheFebruary2024nationalACTtestorhadregisteredfor,butnotyettaken,theApril2024test.InApril2024,thesestudentswereaskedseveralquestions

designedtoevaluate1)howdistractedtheywerebytheirownorotherstudentssmartphonesduringmathematicsandscienceclassesand2)thedegreeoftheirmathematicsandscienceanxiety.

1

Itwashypothesizedthatthedatawouldindicateanegativerelationshipbetweenmathematics

anxietyandACTmathematicsperformance(i.e.,higherlevelsofanxietywouldberelatedto

lowerlevelsofperformance)andasimilarnegativerelationshipbetweensmartphone

distractionsinmathematicsclassesandACTmathematicsperformance(i.e.,higherlevelsof

distractionwouldberelatedtolowerlevelsofperformance).Similarfindingswereanticipatedforscience.

Findings

ACTMathematicsPerformanceandSmartphoneDistractionsinMathematicsClasses

DistractionsinMathematicsClassesFromStudents’OwnSmartphones

Studentswereaskedhowoftentheyweredistractedduringtheirmathematicsclassesbytheirownsmartphones.MeanACTmathematicsscoresdecreasedasthefrequencyofsmartphonedistractionsincreased(Figure1).

2

Forexample,themeanscoreofstudentswhoreportedthattheywereneveroralmostneverdistractedbytheirphones(22.8)washigherthanthatof

studentswhoreportedthattheywerealmostalwaysdistractedbytheirphones(20.3).Analphalevelof.01wasusedinthisstudyforstatisticaltestsofdifferencesbetweenmeanscores.

Althoughthedifferencebetweenthesetwomeanscoreswasnotsignificantaccordingtothiscriterion(q=3.10,p=.0104),thepatternofdecreasesdisplayedbythemeanssuggeststhattherewasanegativerelationshipbetweenstudentsperformanceontheACTmathematicstestandthefrequencyofdistractionsfromtheirsmartphonesduringmathematicsclasses.A

regressionanalysis,whichisdescribedlaterinthissection,confirmedthis.

ACTResearch|IssueBrief|March20254

Figure1.MeanACTMathematicsScorebyFrequencyofDistractionsinMathematicsClassesFromStudents’OwnSmartphones

MeanACTMathematicsScore(99%ConfidenceInterval)

26

25

24

23

22

21

20

19

18

22.8

22.1

21.6

20.3

Neveroralmostnever

(n=4,119)

SometimesOften

(n=2,339)(n=561)

HowOftenDistractedByYourSmartphone

Almostalways

(n=258)

DistractionsinMathematicsClassesFromtheSmartphonesofOtherStudents

Studentswereaskedhowoftentheyweredistractedduringtheirmathematicsclassesbyotherstudents’smartphones.Similartowhatwasobservedfordistractionsfromstudents’own

smartphones,meanACTmathematicsscorestendedtodecreaseasthefrequencyof

distractionsfromotherstudents’smartphonesincreased(Figure2).Anunexpectedfindingwasthatthemeanofthe“almostalways”levelwassomewhatlargerthanthatofthe“often”level

(20.5versus19.8,respectively;thedifferencebetweenthesemeanswasnotstatistically

significant;q=0.83,p=.8401).Apossibleexplanationisthatstudentswhosaidthattheywerealmostalwaysdistractedbyotherstudents’smartphonesduringmathematicsclasseshad

adjustedwelltofrequentdistractionsandthuswereabletolearnmathematicalconceptsaswellasthosestudentswhoreportedsomewhatfewerdistractions.Itisimportanttokeepinmindthattheinterpretationoffindingsforthisdistractionlevelmightbelimitedbecauseofitsrelatively

smallsamplesize(n=183).

ACTResearch|IssueBrief|March20255

Figure2.MeanACTMathematicsScorebyFrequencyofDistractionsinMathematicsClassesFromtheSmartphonesofOtherStudents

MeanACTMathematicsScore(99%ConfidenceInterval)

26

25

24

23

22

21

20

19

18

22.8

22.4

20.5

19.8

NeveroralmostneverSometimesOftenAlmostalways

(n=4,810)(n=1,738)(n=451)(n=183)

HowOftenDistractedByOtherStudents'Smartphones

Anotherexplanationisthattherewasadisproportionatenumberofhigh-achievingstudentsinthe“almostalways”distractionlevelandthattheywereabletofocusinmathematicsclasses

irrespectiveofthefrequencyofsmartphonedistractions.Thispossibilityissupportedbyastudythatexaminedtheacademicperformanceofhighschoolstudentsfollowingmobilephonebansintheirschools.Thatstudy’sfindingssuggestedboththathigh-achievingstudentswereabletofocusintheclassroomwhethermobilephoneswerebannedornotandthattheywere

unaffectedbyanynegativeimpactsofmobilephoneuse(Beland&Murphy,2016).However,thecurrentstudyfoundnoevidencethattherewasadisproportionatenumberofhighachieversinthe“almostalways”level(studentachievementlevelwasdeterminedbyenrollmentin

advancedplacement,accelerated,orhonorscoursesinmathematics;thenumberofmathematicscoursestaken;andhighschoolGPA).

Incaseschool-widesmartphonebansweresomehowrelatedtothisfinding,theproportionsofstudentswhoseschoolshadbannedsmartphones(seeQuestion5intheSurveyInstrument

sectionofthetechnicalappendix)werecomparedacrossdistractionlevels.Theproportionsdidnotdiffersignificantly.Moreover,itwasfoundinaregressionmodelforpredictingACT

mathematicsperformance—amodelthatincludedavariablefordistractionsfromother

ACTResearch|IssueBrief|March20256

students’smartphones,avariableforschool-widesmartphonebans,andvariablesrelatedtostudentbackground—thattheregressioncoefficientforschool-widesmartphonebanswasnotstatisticallysignificant(b=?0.71,t=?2.45,p=.0144).

3

ThissuggeststhatsmartphonebanswerenotrelatedtoACTmathematicsperformanceanddistractionsfromotherstudents’

smartphoneswhenstudentbackgroundvariableswerecontrolledfor.

Thereisanotherpossibilitywemightconsider.Perhapsthisunexpectedfindinghassomethingtodowiththescaleusedforthisquestion.Thatis,ifstudentshaddifficultydistinguishing

betweenthe“often”and“almostalways”levels,thenthedifferencebetweenthemeansfor

theselevelscouldbetheresultofmeasurementerror.However,asimilarfindingdidnotoccurforthequestionaboutdistractionsfromstudents’ownsmartphonesinmathematicsclasses,whichusedthesamescale.Thus,measurementerrorseemsanunlikelyexplanation.

ExpectedDecreasesinACTMathematicsScoreasaFunctionofSmartphoneDistractionsinMathematicsClassesandStudentBackgroundVariables

AregressionanalysiswasusedtofurtherexploretherelationshipbetweenACTmathematicsscoreandsmartphonedistractions.ACTmathematicsscorewasmodeledasafunctionofthefrequencyofdistractionsinmathematicsclassesfromeitherstudents’ownsmartphonesorthesmartphonesofotherstudents,plusseveralstudentbackgroundvariablesknowntoberelatedtoACTmathematicsscore.Thesevariablesincludedgender,race/ethnicity,familyincome

category,highschoolGPA,numberofmathematicscoursestaken,andwhetherastudentwasenrolledinadvancedplacement,accelerated,orhonorscoursesinmathematics.

FindingsoftheregressionanalysisindicatedthattherewouldbeanexpecteddecreaseinACTmathematicsscoreofapproximately?0.42scalescorepointsforeachunitchangeinlevelof

distractionfromastudent’sownsmartphonewhenstudentbackgroundvariableswere

controlledfor.Forexample,ifthelevelofdistractionfromastudent’ssmartphonewereto

increasefrom“neveroralmostnever”to“almostalways,”anincreaseofthreeunits,thenthe

expecteddecreaseinACTmathematicsscorewouldbe?1.26scalescorepoints(b=?0.42,t=?2.59,p=.0097;seeTableA2,Model1,inthetechnicalappendix).

TheexpecteddecreaseinACTmathematicsscorerelatedtodistractionsfromthesmartphonesofotherstudentswaslargerthanthatrelatedtodistractionsfromstudents’ownsmartphones:approximately?0.70scalescorepointsforeachunitchangeinlevelofdistraction.Forexample,ifthelevelofdistractionfromotherstudents’smartphonesweretoincreasefrom“neveror

almostnever”to“almostalways,”thentheexpectedmathematicsscoredecreasewouldbe?2.10scalescorepoints(b=?0.70,t=?4.11,p<.0001;TableA2,Model2).Clearly,thesefindingsindicateanegativerelationshipbetweensmartphonedistractionsandACT

mathematicstestperformance,evenwhentheeffectsofimportantstudentbackgroundvariablesarecontrolledfor.

ACTMathematicsPerformanceandMathematicsAnxiety

Toevaluatetheextentoftheirmathematicsanxiety,studentswereadministeredthe

AbbreviatedMathAnxietyScale(AMAS;Hopkoetal.,2003).TheAMASconsistsofnineitems,

ACTResearch|IssueBrief|March20257

fiveofwhichmeasureanxietyrelatedtolearningmathematics(LMA)andfourofwhichmeasuremathematicsevaluationanxiety(MEA).TheLMAsubscalescorerangesfrom5to25,andtheMEAsubscalescorerangesfrom4to20.AdditionalinformationabouttheAMAScanbefoundintheSurveyInstrumentsectionofthetechnicalappendix.

LearningMathematicsAnxiety

MeanACTmathematicsscoresdecreasedasthelevelofanxietyrelatedtolearning

mathematicsincreased(Figure3).Forexample,studentswithrelativelylowanxiety(i.e.,an

LMAsubscalescoreof5or6,whichwasthebottomquarteroftheLMAscoredistributionforstudentsinthisstudy)hadameanmathematicsscoreof24.6,whereasstudentswithrelativelyhighanxiety(i.e.,anLMAsubscalescorebetween13and25,thetopquarter)hadamean

mathematicsscoreof19.2.Thedifferencebetweenthesemeanswasstatisticallysignificant(q=14.87,p<.0001,d=1.01).

4

Figure3.MeanACTMathematicsScorebyLevelofLearningMathematicsAnxiety

MeanACTMathematicsScore(99%ConfidenceInterval)

26

25

24

23

22

21

20

19

18

24.6

23.7

22.4

19.2

5–6

(n=1,972)

7–8

(n=1,146)

9–12

(n=1,620)

13–25

(n=1,338)

LearningMathematicsAnxietySubscaleScore

MathematicsEvaluationAnxiety

Asimilar,negativerelationshiptothatbetweenmathlearninganxietyandACTmathematicsperformancewasobservedforanxietyrelatedtomathematicsevaluation.MeanACT

mathematicsscoresdecreasedasevaluationanxietyincreased,witha3.7scalescorepoint

ACTResearch|IssueBrief|March20258

CT

?2025byACTEducationCorp.Allrightsreserved.|R2435

differenceinmeanscores(q=8.62,p<.0001,d=0.65)betweenstudentswithrelativelylowanxiety(i.e.,anMEAsubscalescorebetween4and10,thebottomquarteroftheMEAscoredistribution)andthosewithrelativelyhighanxiety(i.e.,anMEAsubscalescoreof19or20,thetopquarter;Figure4).

Figure4.MeanACTMathematicsScorebyLevelofMathematicsEvaluationAnxiety

MeanACTMathematicsScore(99%ConfidenceInterval)

26

25

24

23

22

21

20

19

18

24.3

23.0

22.1

20.6

410

(n=1,561)

11141518

(n=1,544)(n=1,958)

MathematicsEvaluationAnxietySubscaleScore

1920

(n=1,063)

ExpectedDecreasesinACTMathematicsScoreasaFunctionofMathematicsAnxietyandStudentBackgroundVariables

MultiplelinearregressionwasusedtomodelACTmathematicsscoreasafunctionof

mathematicsanxiety(LMAsubscaleorMEAsubscale)andstudentbackgroundvariables

relatedtoperformanceonthistest(gender,race/ethnicity,familyincomecategory,highschoolGPA,numberofmathematicscoursestaken,andwhetherastudentwasenrolledinadvancedplacement,accelerated,orhonorscoursesinmathematics).Thefindingsindicatedthattherewouldbeanexpecteddecreaseinmathematicsscoreofapproximately?0.32scalescore

pointsforeachunitincreaseinLMAsubscalescore.Forexample,ifastudentslevelofLMAweretoincreasefrom8(themedianscoreforstudentsinthisstudy)to12(the75thpercentile),thentheexpecteddecreaseinmathematicsscorewouldbe?1.28scalescorepoints(b=

ACTResearch|IssueBrief|March20259

CT

?2025byACTEducationCorp.Allrightsreserved.|R2435

?0.32,t=?9.75,p<.0001;TableA2,Model3),evenwhenstudentbackgroundvariableswerecontrolledfor.

MultipleregressionfindingsformathematicsevaluationanxietyindicatedanegativerelationshipbetweenthismeasureandACTmathematicsperformance.ForeachunitincreaseinMEA,

therewasanexpecteddecreaseinmathematicsscoreofapproximately?0.24scalescorepoints(b=?0.24,t=?7.22,p<.0001;TableA2,Model4)whengender,race/ethnicity,andotherstudentbackgroundvariableswerecontrolledfor.

ACTSciencePerformanceandSmartphoneDistractionsinScienceClasses

TheprimarygoalofthisstudywastoexaminetherelationshipsbetweenACTmathematicsscoresandtwofactors:smartphonedistractionsinmathematicsclassesandmathematicsanxiety.Anothergoalwastodeterminewhethersmartphonedistractionsandanxietywererelatedtoperformanceinsubjectsotherthanmathematics.ThissectionpresentsfindingsofnegativerelationshipsbetweenACTscienceperformanceandtwofactors:smartphone

distractionsinscienceclassesandscienceanxiety.

5

DistractionsinScienceClassesFromStudents’OwnSmartphones

Asthefrequencyofdistractionsinscienceclassesincreased,ACTsciencescoresdecreasedonaverage.Forexample,themeansciencescoreofstudentswhoreportedthattheywere

neveroralmostneverdistractedbytheirownsmartphonesinscienceclasseswaslargerthanthatofstudentswhoreportedthattheywerealmostalwaysdistractedinthismanner(23.6

versus21.6,respectively;Figure5).However,thesemeansdidnotdiffersignificantlyfromeachother(q=2.80,p=.0266).

ACTResearch|IssueBrief|March202510

CT

?2025byACTEducationCorp.Allrightsreserved.|R2435

Figure5.MeanACTScienceScorebyFrequencyofDistractionsinScienceClassesFromStudents’OwnSmartphones

26

MeanACTScienceScore(99%ConfidenceInterval)

25

24

23

22

21

20

19

18

23.623.423.3

21.6

Neveroralmostnever

(n=3,910)

Sometimes

(n=2,204)

Often

(n=750)

Almostalways

(n=233)

HowOftenDistractedByYourSmartphone

DistractionsinScienceClassesFromtheSmartphonesofOtherStudents

MeanACTsciencescorestendedtodecreaseasthefrequencyofdistractionsfromthe

smartphonesofotherstudentsinscienceclassesincreased.Forexample,themeanscience

scoreofstudentswhoreportedarelativelylowfrequencyofsmartphonedistractionwashigherthanthatofstudentswhoreportedarelativelyhighfrequency(meanfor“neveroralmostnever”level=23.5versus22.4for“almostalways”level;Figure6).However,thedifferencebetweenthesemeanswasnotstatisticallysignificant(q=1.35,p=.5295).

ACTResearch|IssueBrief|March202511

Figure6.MeanACTScienceScorebyFrequencyofDistractionsinScienceClassesFromtheSmartphonesofOtherStudents

MeanACTScienceScore(99%ConfidenceInterval)

26

25

24

23

22

21

20

19

18

23.8

23.5

22.7

22.4

NeveroralmostneverSometimesOftenAlmostalways

(n=4,672)(n=1,686)(n=501)(n=213)

HowOftenDistractedByOtherStudents'Smartphones

Themeansciencescoreofstudentsinthe“sometimes”levelwasslightlyhigherthanthatof

studentsinthe“neveroralmostnever”level(23.8versus23.5,respectively;thedifference

betweenthesemeanswasnotstatisticallysignificant;q=0.88,p=.8153).Thehypothesis

proposedbyBelandandMurphy(2016)thathigh-achievingstudentsareabletofocusinthe

classroomandareunaffectedbyanynegativeimpactsofmobilephoneusewasconsideredasapossibleexplanationforthisunexpectedfinding.Severalmeasuresofstudentachievement

wereexaminedacrosssmartphonedistractionlevels.Itwasfoundthatthepercentageof

studentsenrolledinadvancedplacement,accelerated,orhonorscoursesinthenatural

sciences;thenumberofnaturalsciencescoursestaken;andhighschoolGPAwerecomparableacrosslevels.Therefore,itisunlikelythatthedifferencesinmeanACTsciencescoresacrossthedistractionlevelswererelatedtodifferencesinproportionsofhigh-achievingstudents.

School-widesmartphonebansdidnotappeartoberelatedtothisunexpectedfindingeither.

Theproportionsofstudentswhoseschoolshadimplementedsmartphonebansdidnotdiffersignificantlyacrossdistractionlevels.Inaddition,aregressionanalysisindicatedthat

smartphonebanswerenotsignificantlyrelatedtoACTsciencescore(b=一0.46,t=一1.51,p=.1313)whilecontrollingforsmartphonedistractionsinscienceclassesandstudentbackground

ACTResearch|IssueBrief|March202512

variables(gender,race/ethnicity,familyincomecategory,highschoolGPA,numberofnaturalsciencescoursestaken,andwhetherastudentwasenrolledinadvancedplacement,

accelerated,orhonorscoursesinthenaturalsciences).

ExpectedDecreasesinACTScienceScoreasaFunctionofSmartphoneDistractionsinScienceClassesandStudentBackgroundVariables

RegressionmodelsweredevelopedtofurtherexaminetherelationshipbetweenACTscienceperformanceandsmartphonedistractionswhilecontrollingforgender,race/ethnicity,family

incomecategory,highschoolGPA,numberofnaturalsciencescoursestaken,andwhetherastudentwasenrolledinadvancedplacement,accelerated,orhonorscoursesinthenatural

sciences.Unliketheregressioncoefficientsforthemathematicsmodels,however,the

regressioncoefficientsforthesciencemodelswerenotstatisticallysignificant(b=一0.20,t=

一1.12,p=.2617fordistractionsfromstudents’ownsmartphonesandb=一0.07,t=一0.37,p=.7092fordistractionsfromthesmartphonesofothers),thusprecludingacceptableestimationofdecreasesinACTsciencescorethatwouldbeexpectedforunitchangesinthesefactors.

Moreover,thesefindingssuggestthattherelationshipsbetweenACTscienceperformanceandsmartphonedistractionsinscienceclasseswerestatisticallyweakerthanthosebetweenACTmathematicsperformanceandsmartphonedistractionsinmathematicsclasses.

ACTSciencePerformanceandScienceAnxiety

Tomeasurestudents’levelsofscienceanxiety,theywereadministeredtheAbbreviated

ScienceAnxietyScale(ASAS;Megreyaetal.,2021),whichisadaptedfromthemodified

AbbreviatedMathAnxietyScale(m-AMAS;Careyetal.,2017).Them-AMASisadaptedfromtheAMAS.IncreatingtheASAS,theauthorsadjustedthem-AMASbyreplacingmathematics-relatedwordingwithscience-relatedwording.LiketheAMAS,thenine-itemASASyieldstwo

subscalescores,oneforlearningscienceanxiety(LSA;5items,withscoresrangingfrom5to25)andoneforscienceevaluationanxiety(SEA;4items,withscoresrangingfrom4to20).AdditionalinformationabouttheASAScanbefoundintheSurveyInstrumentsectionofthetechnicalappendix.

LearningScienceAnxiety

HighermeanACTsciencescoreswererelatedt