Erm. I read the article and.. still not sure "what happened". Article mentioned that: but there no mention what are the results of the ban in New Zealand except of frustration of some students?
Erm. I read the article and.. still not sure "what happened". Article mentioned that:
But studies have shown these bans often don’t work as planned. For example, recent research from the UK involving over 1,200 students found no significant difference in academic grades or wellbeing between schools with strict phone bans and those with more relaxed policies.
but there no mention what are the results of the ban in New Zealand except of frustration of some students?
It’s either poor reporting or poor study design. It’s not clear from the article what they were trying to achieve or what metrics they were using to assess that achievement. Extrapolating from the...
It’s either poor reporting or poor study design.
It’s not clear from the article what they were trying to achieve or what metrics they were using to assess that achievement.
Extrapolating from the article it says they wanted to reduce distractions. Extrapolating from the quotation you pulled, about the UK study, they wanted to improve academic performance and reduce the mental health/health effects associated with misuse of phones.
The schools decided an all out ban of phones was the solution, but the article itself points out that a ban without instruction of how to responsibly use phones or a ban of phone without banning other distracting technology, resulted in no change, other than additional distress from the student body, who felt, rightfully so, disenfranchised.
In other words, another abstinence only program based on nothing except very simplistic cause and effect understandings, with no thought to true root cause analysis, fails.
I feel compelled to clarify that it wasn't schools who decided this, it was politicians. It was a policy put in place by an incoming government to signal a tough love approach to improving grades.
I feel compelled to clarify that it wasn't schools who decided this, it was politicians. It was a policy put in place by an incoming government to signal a tough love approach to improving grades.
Didn’t read the article, but if the ban made no difference, then my theory is that it’s because the kids keep using the phones outside of school. The best thing I did in recent years was to delete...
Didn’t read the article, but if the ban made no difference, then my theory is that it’s because the kids keep using the phones outside of school.
The best thing I did in recent years was to delete all my social media and reduce my phone to a tool. If you want to use social media, go right ahead.
But I’d recommend treating it like entertainment, being very vigilant of what type of content you consume, and reduce your exposure to not more than 30 to 60 minutes a day (or maybe even just going on there every other day). Social media rots people’s brains, especially those that are undeveloped, such as those of kids.
Erm. I read the article and.. still not sure "what happened". Article mentioned that:
but there no mention what are the results of the ban in New Zealand except of frustration of some students?
It’s either poor reporting or poor study design.
It’s not clear from the article what they were trying to achieve or what metrics they were using to assess that achievement.
Extrapolating from the article it says they wanted to reduce distractions. Extrapolating from the quotation you pulled, about the UK study, they wanted to improve academic performance and reduce the mental health/health effects associated with misuse of phones.
The schools decided an all out ban of phones was the solution, but the article itself points out that a ban without instruction of how to responsibly use phones or a ban of phone without banning other distracting technology, resulted in no change, other than additional distress from the student body, who felt, rightfully so, disenfranchised.
In other words, another abstinence only program based on nothing except very simplistic cause and effect understandings, with no thought to true root cause analysis, fails.
I feel compelled to clarify that it wasn't schools who decided this, it was politicians. It was a policy put in place by an incoming government to signal a tough love approach to improving grades.
Didn’t read the article, but if the ban made no difference, then my theory is that it’s because the kids keep using the phones outside of school.
The best thing I did in recent years was to delete all my social media and reduce my phone to a tool. If you want to use social media, go right ahead.
But I’d recommend treating it like entertainment, being very vigilant of what type of content you consume, and reduce your exposure to not more than 30 to 60 minutes a day (or maybe even just going on there every other day). Social media rots people’s brains, especially those that are undeveloped, such as those of kids.
I nuked mine, too. The amount of time spent giggling at dumb buffoonery on Instagram could be spent elsewhere.