Good, I’d probably have done way better in high school if my phone hadn’t been there (and if I’d gotten my ADHD dX and Adderall rX back then). No reason to have them on you if you’re a student. Parents and family can call the school if there’s an emergency.
Educational experts, at least here in Germany, advise against a ban. A phone enables participation for a child among children who‘ll just work around the ban. The net effect will be negative.
Results: The results revealed that ringing cell phones in the class were the most commonly reported electronic external distractor for 68% of students, and 21% of them reported being extremely distracted by this noise. Having an instructor who is difficult to understand was the most commonly reported external behavioral distractor for 75% of students, and 48% of them rated this as extremely distracting. Students talking in class were the most self-produced distractor for 72% of students; negatively impacting their concentration and ability to learn, and 42% of them rated it as an extreme distractor. Wearing clothing with unusual words, drinking and eating in the classroom were minimally distracting colleagues. Overall, distractions (internal and external) were more significant for fifth-year students than the other years at a p-value < 0.001.
Conclusion: Students believed that laptop and cell phone use in the classroom can effect their concentration and ability to learn. The students also felt that inappropriate behavior is a major distraction for students as well, and thus necessitates monitoring and improvement.
Ah yes, if [unnamed vague concept] of German “educational” “experts” say so then it MUST both be an 1) honest report of findings, and 2) objectively correct facts. Opinion changed. Boom done.
Just kidding.
Thats stupid, and even if they are real and think so, I think they are stupid then lol.
Banning phones means banning phones. It’s hard for kids to sneak a brick of bright light when they’re in a classroom of their peers facing the teacher, so noone will be missing out on anything so long as the teachers properly enforce the new rule.
I think it likely that there will be more positive outcomes by forcing children to socialize face-to-face which is natural and especially important at that age.
Your comment essentially boils down to: Some people think we should just let kids do whatever they want and don’t worry about discipline, rules, or things needing a “right place and the right time.” You reek of “millennial/ipad-kid parent” lol.
Of course the mentioned experts (Deutsches Kinderhilfswerk, Zentrum für Digitalen Fortschritt, Gesellschaft für Medienpädagogik, Bundeselternrat in an open letter to the government) based that on studies. Here is one of the meta studies: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/epub/10.1177/20556365241270394
The answer simply is not as simple as you may think. The judgmental nonsense in the last paragraph doesn’t change that of course.
Reconciliation of results was challenging, and findings should be treated with caution given differences in methods and measures, and discrepancies in operational definitions of the bans themselves. For example, the results of two studies supporting bans for improved academic outcomes were restricted to low-achieving students from low socioeconomic (SES) backgrounds… That is, they found that high-achieving and economically advantaged students were less likely to benefit academically from mobile phones use in class, as compared to their disadvantaged peers
Beland and Murphy (2016) examined exam scores in secondary school students and found that in schools which imposed a mobile phone ban, exam scores improved by an average 0.07 standard deviation, pre- to post-ban. Importantly, this effect was driven by the finding that students in the lowest quintile of prior academic achievement made a gain of approximately 14.23% of a standard deviation in test scores, while for students in the top quintile, test scores were unrelated to the ban.
Despite the variability of findings, it seems that in some circumstances there are some negative, although small, impacts of mobile phone use on academic outcomes. This suggests that restrictions on mobile phones in schools might be beneficial for some students’ academic achievement but make no difference to others.
Considering the ban largely concerns itself with CLASSROOMS in South Korea — a place where students are SUPPOSED TO LEARN, y’know, where the principle concern is academics — I’d say that their findings support the ban more than anything else.
Furthermore, TWO studies showed increases in bullying/cyberbullying while the MAJORITY showed decreases in such harassment — but the study still postures itself in a way that hypothesizes why it increases and further hypothesizes that phones shouldn’t be banned to prevent that POSSIBILITY.
The answer is simple if you read your own linked study and actually use your brain while doing so. It’s clear the authors entered into this metastudy with preconceived biases from their “narrative” and highly suggestive “findings” which you cherry-picked your own conclusions from to support your odd, logically questionable comment. And again, you don’t need a study by some rando people to conclude that phones are just not needed and possibly harmful at school for children.
Again, put your iPad down dude, you probably got a kid to go parent. Otherwise, go touch grass :)
Would this not be a ban on phones for kids and less on in class? I don’t think they would miss out on much during class time, but not having a phone at all would cause a social barrier in today’s world.
Uhm yes. A second argument was that the children need to learn media literacy with the medium they use the most. Of course this would need more competence and guiding on the side of the teachers.
I remember reading a study not too long ago that said being excluded for not having a phone isn’t really happening in schools that have already banned phones.
Most houses don’t have home phones anymore so kids cannot just call up their friends. I think the over lap of people who don’t allow kids’ phones also don’t allow social media is high.
Younger children (ages 6-11) shouldn’t have more than a basic “Ladybug-esque” phone, their parents should largely be coordinating playdates between friends and supervising them during anyways — so there’s no need to text.
Tweens, IMO, can start getting a real phone but parents need to step up and lock that shit down. No social media, no adult sites, no ability to contact strangers.
Then, as the kids learn and become more responsible, the parents should start unlocking features as privileges upon a showing that child understands the internet, its permanency, and how it can be a useful tool but also a possible addiction/source for harm.
I’d say when the children are in their teens, social media should start to be unlocked BUT monitored. I really think the big social media companies are just evil and don’y care about protecting children at all, so it’s up to the parents to ensure that.
Then when the kid becomes an adult, their parents have no say and hopefully the parents prepared them well for the real world!
I say this as an adult who had technologically illiterate parents as a child and thus I had free access to the internet and the birth of modern social media around the age of 11 or 12 lol. I saw shit that definitely left impressions on my brain (r/watchpeopledie on reddit) and was also almost groomed by a stranger lol. I imagine the internet would be even worse for my younger self’s brain nowadays.
Overall, I think more in-person socialization would be better for everyone of all ages.
What?? What absurd scenario are you referring to? What situation could they create that would require the kids to have phones to “handle it themselves” instead of finding the nearest adult teacher/admin and getting help?
If there’s an earthquake — I hope people/children are more concerned about getting to safety rather than calling mommy and telling her that they are about to die because rather than get to safety they got distracted by their phone calling her.
After the earthquake, if it’s catastrophic, the parents know where the kids are. Hint: AT THE FUCKIN’ SCHOOL. And they will likely need to go pick them up anyways.
What kind of stupid thought process led you to believe you’re making some sort of intelligent point here? Get real, touch grass.
I know they are AT THE FUCKING SCHOOL, but I don’t know if they are alive and well and I don’t need to worry much, or they are hurt and need medical attention or worse. A simple fucking SMS will alleviate any worries INSTEAD OF LEAVING WORK AND TRAVELING FOR 1.5 FUCKING HOURS TO GET TO THE SCHOOL to see for myself.
Which one is simpler, pray tell, Mr. Smartpants? Do you even have any kids or what? Because you don’t really sound like a parent.
Like many other forms of addiction, the reflexive need to have a screen on hand can become its own font of excuses.
But a lot of these read like the anti-seatbelt and bike-helmet propaganda I used to see back in the 1980s. “No, there’s a secret danger, you don’t understand. I have a right to do what I want, you can’t stop me. My obscure, thinly sourced anecdote says doing things doesn’t work.”
God I hate tiny screen. I truly find myself so much happier without tiny screen.
I grew up in the 00’s/10’s so I’m grateful to remember a time before the iPhone lol. Even the early iPhone/Androids were okay.
But now, it’d just an addiction propagating (gambling, gaming, porn, doomscrolling) and parasocial relationship creating metal+glass brick with the added bonus of corporate and government surveillance and a duty to respond to emails and work calls lol.
You make great points by the way. You comment on tiny screen addiction is what got me thinking about how much I hate smartphones these days.
Good, I’d probably have done way better in high school if my phone hadn’t been there (and if I’d gotten my ADHD dX and Adderall rX back then). No reason to have them on you if you’re a student. Parents and family can call the school if there’s an emergency.
Educational experts, at least here in Germany, advise against a ban. A phone enables participation for a child among children who‘ll just work around the ban. The net effect will be negative.
Maybe German kids are just built different.
Ah yes, if [unnamed vague concept] of German “educational” “experts” say so then it MUST both be an 1) honest report of findings, and 2) objectively correct facts. Opinion changed. Boom done.
Just kidding.
Thats stupid, and even if they are real and think so, I think they are stupid then lol.
Banning phones means banning phones. It’s hard for kids to sneak a brick of bright light when they’re in a classroom of their peers facing the teacher, so noone will be missing out on anything so long as the teachers properly enforce the new rule.
I think it likely that there will be more positive outcomes by forcing children to socialize face-to-face which is natural and especially important at that age.
Your comment essentially boils down to: Some people think we should just let kids do whatever they want and don’t worry about discipline, rules, or things needing a “right place and the right time.” You reek of “millennial/ipad-kid parent” lol.
Of course the mentioned experts (Deutsches Kinderhilfswerk, Zentrum für Digitalen Fortschritt, Gesellschaft für Medienpädagogik, Bundeselternrat in an open letter to the government) based that on studies. Here is one of the meta studies: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/epub/10.1177/20556365241270394
The answer simply is not as simple as you may think. The judgmental nonsense in the last paragraph doesn’t change that of course.
Considering the ban largely concerns itself with CLASSROOMS in South Korea — a place where students are SUPPOSED TO LEARN, y’know, where the principle concern is academics — I’d say that their findings support the ban more than anything else.
Furthermore, TWO studies showed increases in bullying/cyberbullying while the MAJORITY showed decreases in such harassment — but the study still postures itself in a way that hypothesizes why it increases and further hypothesizes that phones shouldn’t be banned to prevent that POSSIBILITY.
The answer is simple if you read your own linked study and actually use your brain while doing so. It’s clear the authors entered into this metastudy with preconceived biases from their “narrative” and highly suggestive “findings” which you cherry-picked your own conclusions from to support your odd, logically questionable comment. And again, you don’t need a study by some rando people to conclude that phones are just not needed and possibly harmful at school for children.
Again, put your iPad down dude, you probably got a kid to go parent. Otherwise, go touch grass :)
Would this not be a ban on phones for kids and less on in class? I don’t think they would miss out on much during class time, but not having a phone at all would cause a social barrier in today’s world.
Uhm yes. A second argument was that the children need to learn media literacy with the medium they use the most. Of course this would need more competence and guiding on the side of the teachers.
If you’re adding another thing to teach, it would also require additional time. Teachers have full loads as-is.
There’s plenty of absolutely useless stuff done in schools just because that’s how we used to do it.
Yes, we need to reform the system.
I remember reading a study not too long ago that said being excluded for not having a phone isn’t really happening in schools that have already banned phones.
I’ll link it here if I can find it.
I don’t see how.
Most houses don’t have home phones anymore so kids cannot just call up their friends. I think the over lap of people who don’t allow kids’ phones also don’t allow social media is high.
Younger children (ages 6-11) shouldn’t have more than a basic “Ladybug-esque” phone, their parents should largely be coordinating playdates between friends and supervising them during anyways — so there’s no need to text.
Tweens, IMO, can start getting a real phone but parents need to step up and lock that shit down. No social media, no adult sites, no ability to contact strangers.
Then, as the kids learn and become more responsible, the parents should start unlocking features as privileges upon a showing that child understands the internet, its permanency, and how it can be a useful tool but also a possible addiction/source for harm.
I’d say when the children are in their teens, social media should start to be unlocked BUT monitored. I really think the big social media companies are just evil and don’y care about protecting children at all, so it’s up to the parents to ensure that.
Then when the kid becomes an adult, their parents have no say and hopefully the parents prepared them well for the real world!
I say this as an adult who had technologically illiterate parents as a child and thus I had free access to the internet and the birth of modern social media around the age of 11 or 12 lol. I saw shit that definitely left impressions on my brain (r/watchpeopledie on reddit) and was also almost groomed by a stranger lol. I imagine the internet would be even worse for my younger self’s brain nowadays.
Overall, I think more in-person socialization would be better for everyone of all ages.
If there is an emergency the school refuses to report (or worse; them creating a situation), that is not the case.
What?? What absurd scenario are you referring to? What situation could they create that would require the kids to have phones to “handle it themselves” instead of finding the nearest adult teacher/admin and getting help?
So if there is an earthquake or something, you expect to connect through the school phone number? Yeah right.
If there’s an earthquake — I hope people/children are more concerned about getting to safety rather than calling mommy and telling her that they are about to die because rather than get to safety they got distracted by their phone calling her.
After the earthquake, if it’s catastrophic, the parents know where the kids are. Hint: AT THE FUCKIN’ SCHOOL. And they will likely need to go pick them up anyways.
What kind of stupid thought process led you to believe you’re making some sort of intelligent point here? Get real, touch grass.
I know they are AT THE FUCKING SCHOOL, but I don’t know if they are alive and well and I don’t need to worry much, or they are hurt and need medical attention or worse. A simple fucking SMS will alleviate any worries INSTEAD OF LEAVING WORK AND TRAVELING FOR 1.5 FUCKING HOURS TO GET TO THE SCHOOL to see for myself.
Which one is simpler, pray tell, Mr. Smartpants? Do you even have any kids or what? Because you don’t really sound like a parent.
Like many other forms of addiction, the reflexive need to have a screen on hand can become its own font of excuses.
But a lot of these read like the anti-seatbelt and bike-helmet propaganda I used to see back in the 1980s. “No, there’s a secret danger, you don’t understand. I have a right to do what I want, you can’t stop me. My obscure, thinly sourced anecdote says doing things doesn’t work.”
God I hate tiny screen. I truly find myself so much happier without tiny screen.
I grew up in the 00’s/10’s so I’m grateful to remember a time before the iPhone lol. Even the early iPhone/Androids were okay.
But now, it’d just an addiction propagating (gambling, gaming, porn, doomscrolling) and parasocial relationship creating metal+glass brick with the added bonus of corporate and government surveillance and a duty to respond to emails and work calls lol.
You make great points by the way. You comment on tiny screen addiction is what got me thinking about how much I hate smartphones these days.