Syntes: Sungu, Choudhury & Bjerre-Nielsen (2026) — Indian HEI phone-collection RCT raised GPA (Science)

Källa: Sungu, A., Choudhury, P. K., & Bjerre-Nielsen, A. (2026). Phones impede learning: Evidence from a massive phone-free classroom experiment. Science, 394(6820), 178–181. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aef7249 — peer reviewed (published 8 October 2026). Earlier working-paper title on SSRN: Removing Phones from Classrooms Improves Academic Performance / Phones Impede Learning (abstract id 5370727).

Verified numbers (Science article page read 2026-10-14; Crossref DOI checked; design detail confirmed against author PDF of the working-paper version, not stored)

• Setting: 10 higher-education institutions in Odisha, India; Spring 2024 semester (February–May). Smartphone ownership among youth 15–29 in India >70% (authors cite national survey).
• Design: preregistered RCT; randomisation at department–grade (cohort) level across 420 units (198 assigned to ban); students experienced the same condition across nearly all courses. Treatment: mandatory deposit of phones in classroom boxes at the start of each lecture (not opt-in; approved exceptions only). Control: usual phone access. Phone boxes were placed in shared classrooms for both arms; the difference is enforcement.
• Sample: N = 16,683 students; 742 teachers; 2,305 courses; mean age 19.4 (SD 1.26; range 16–22); 35.5% female.
• Outcome: end-of-semester GPA; 60–80% of each course grade from externally prepared, off-site graded exams (blind to treatment); exam halls phone-free for both arms.
• Main effect (Science): intent-to-treat, controlling for prior-term GPA: +0.073 SD [95% CI 0.003, 0.144], one-sided p = 0.021. Baseline GPA balanced. Larger and significant among students below median prior achievement and first-year undergraduates; near zero / ns for above-median, postgraduates, STEM. No consistent attendance effect.
• Attitudes (survey subset N = 2,557): treated students more supportive of bans (+0.17 SD), perceived greater benefits (+0.20), less preference for no ban (−0.19). Mild FOMO increase; no significant change in overall wellbeing, motivation, phone-use time, or online harassment.
• Authors' boundary conditions: HEIs (academically selected), not K–12; lecture-only ban, not bell-to-bell; generalisation to more developed countries with more additional devices is open.

Role for C6

Supports / survive-and-log (2026-10-14): genuine kill-condition test (field RCT of free phone access during lessons vs a collection ban, on learning outcomes). Kill fails because grades rose. First large peer-reviewed RCT in the project; adds a higher-education, middle-income setting and a lecture-only (not all-day) ban. Not a duplicate of Figlio & Özek (Florida DiD), Lichand et al. (Rio DiD), Allcott et al. (US pouches), or Shi & Villarroel (Chile classroom rules). Population is HEI students (ages 16–22), not school pupils — noted in Bounds and Ages.