The "study" is that they asked teachers, "Hey, how's it been going?" and the teachers answered, "I feel like my students are paying attention more now."
this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2025
361 points (97.9% liked)
Technology
73331 readers
4800 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Who better to poll than teachers for this type of study? They are the ones in the trenches and can gauge the results.
You shouldn't poll anyone, instead look at test results. If there is better focus, it'll improve learning outcomes like test scores, graduation rates, and reduces instances of cheating. IMO, if we poll anyone, it should be parents about how much assistance they give their kids (i.e. are they filling in the gaps in their education less?).
It's nice that teachers think kids are paying more attention, but that only matters if kids are learning more.
That's another type of study that is also worthwhile. But the effects of distracted students on teachers and the classroom as a whole is also relevant.
Sure, I just don't trust results from subjective studies, unless it's tracking trends over time. So maybe if they had opinion polls like this before smartphones were a thing in classrooms, while smartphones were a thing, and after they were banned I'd trust the results somewhat. But if we're just tracking an after-the-fact poll, it just feels like confirmation bias. I believe teachers have an incentive to overstate the impact of policies that give them more control, because they want to encourage more such policies, even if they aren't effective at achieving tangible results.
So yeah, I distrust this type of study. I don't think it's necessarily worthless, I just don't think many conclusions can be taken from it.
You can conclude that teachers experience a better classroom environment. There was also 1/3 that did observe academic improvement.
E: Also, a teachers subjective experience is still an objective result if you are considering the qol aspect of the policy.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Yes, but there's a huge degree of bias whenever you ask people anything. Obviously teachers are going to think phones are detrimental to class focus, and thus they're more likely to say their ban helped with that same focus
Same thing If you asked students, but reversed
Both great metrics to have, true.
Yeah, like, if you're just gonna ask someone, they'd be the ones to ask.
load more comments
(5 replies)
Polling professionals and experts on their opinions is perfectly reasonable to publish as a preliminary study on a subject
It's a sensible first step.
Sure, but it is not a study general public, like us on lemmy, should care about. It needs a follow up before making decisions.
Yet you can already see people calling for phone bans...
It is absolutely relevant enough to be published publicly.
Yet you can already see people calling for phone bans...
Yes, because they should've been banned 10 years ago
Based on what data?
At my middle school, we also banned smartphones throughout the whole building. You were meant to either leave yours at home or put it in your locker when you got there. It's a lot easier to chat with people during the breaks when they're not face-down in their phone screen.
Have the iPads and laptops not been collected?
They were always collected when not in use. We don't get personal devices, we either go to the computer room, where every screen can be seen by the teacher at once a la panopticon, or we get a trolley full of laptops that we hand in at the end of the lesson. You can also BYOD that isn't a smartphone, so long as you don't use it during lesson time when the teacher doesn't permit it.
load more comments
(1 replies)
So they're saying removing distractions improves focus? Woah dude, spoiler warning!
How were they ever allowed?
I was in school from the transition from no mobiles at all to smart phones. If you got caught with one it was whipped off you.
At my school, they only cared if you used it, and you'd be forced to put it away if caught. A lot of my friends had phones, but they weren't allowed to use them in class, and it was treated like any other gadget like a gameboy.
I don't believe in bans (kids can use them between classes), but I also believe kids shouldn't use any devices in class.
What next?
What?
Really? Slippery slope argument?
This is a good thing, take it
Next they pay attention and learn algebra
I am shocked they allowed them in school tbh. They were not allowed at school for millennials. Granted phones were new but all the flip phones and such were not allowed at schools.
Born on Europe on 1985. We never had a ban on phones (later "feature phones"). We couldn't use them in class, same as the game boy, a comic or a Walkman.
Now schools force Chromebooks/ewaste with laughable restrictions.
I'm absolutely in favor of schools disallowing use of phones in class, but I'm against them being banned. If kids want to use them between classes, that's fine, as long as they don't use them in class.
Yeah, my state just enacted a “bell-to-bell” ban on cell phones in schools for my kids. I absolutely support a ban on phones in class (so long as the school is providing necessary tech to educate with) but banning between class just ignores that phones are an important part of how kids socialize and ripping it away cold-turkey can’t be healthy.
Edit: also, I gave my kids phones primarily so they could contact me in an emergency, and I am very much not ok with the state telling me they can’t have the phone in their backpack.
The fact that you used the term we usually use to describe quitting alcohol and cigarettes is probably a good sign that they should be banned.
Wat? It’s called a colloquialism. It’s a way to describe something I know you know without needing to spell it out.
You’re basically asserting that anything described using an analogy must inherit all the traits of anything else that analogy is used for, which is just silly. It’s a classic composition/division fallacy.
Agree with this, but I don't supply my kids with phones at all, despite their friends having them. If there's an emergency, they can go to the office or ask their teacher. If that's not possible, the school will likely call instead (e.g. when there was a bomb threat a couple of years ago).
I have chosen to not give my kids phones, but I also think other parents should be allowed to choose differently. Everyone's circumstances are different, and I don't want the government stepping in to make parenting decisions for me, even if my decisions would be the same. That's overreach and I will absolutely oppose it.
I don’t think there is a good answer here. I didn’t really want my kids to have phones either but all you’re doing by denying them the primary social tool of their generation is ostracizing them from their peers.
Being a parent sometimes feels like a series of un-winnable choices.
What peers? They mostly play with neighborhood kids, and we have contact info for a few that live further away and arrange things that way. Our kids aren't teenagers yet, but my sister's are and they seem to do fine without phones as well. My friends growing up mostly had phones, and I worked around that as well.
I think people are making a much bigger deal about it than it really is. Maybe it's a larger issue in other areas, but honestly, my kids mostly want one to play games, not contact friends.
We certainly reevaluate regularly, but I'll need a pretty good reason to give my kids their own phones. I'm much more likely to have a loaner they can share, and only for a fixed amount of time.
And what if they get into trouble on their way home? Or the way to the bus, supermarket or whatnot?
What trouble? Adults don't want to mess with kids (most child abuse happens with close aquaintances, not random crazies on the street), so their biggest threat is going to be bullies around their age, and a parent stepping in will just make that problem worse, so they'll need to learn to deal with that on their own anyway.
I personally have never had an issue going to/from school, other than the typical bullying on the bus. The most likely problem they'd run into is getting hit by a car, in which case they need paramedics and police, not me, and those emergency services will call me once they identify them (and I trust random strangers to call emergency services if a kid gets hit).
The only time I expect my kid to need to call is if they're at a party or something outside of school and need to be picked up because they don't feel comfortable. When they get to an age where that's a thing, we'll have a loaner phone for them to use.
Falling off your bike and cracking your head open or breaking something or whatever. I used to bike through somewhere where not a lot of people would pass by.
Or even worse, get hit by a tractor who didn't see you and not be found until later, which can cause permanent damage. Happened to somebody I know sadly, she is disabled for life now. Yes, the person in the tractor should have been more careful and have seen her, but you can hit somebody with one of those and not notice it.
I also never said they should use the phone to call the parents, you can also call 112 with those.
Right, but if you're in a situation where you need emergency services, chances are you won't be in a situation to call. For the vanishingly low chance of that being necessary (esp. in my case where I take them to/from school since there's no bus service), I trust strangers to call since my area is sufficiently densely populated for someone to see what happened.
If you live in an area where such things are more likely, I absolutely agree that you should be able to make that choice. I firmly oppose any school-wide ban on phones for that reason, I just happen to agree that, generally speaking, kids don't need and shouldn't have phones.
And if you really feel the need for your kid to contact you or emergency services, there are devices like Gabb watches that have only the functions you need. So please, consider those before considering a smartphone.
Kids shouldn’t have smartphones no, but it can he handy for a group of kinds to have at least some kind of phone. Heck even a phone without a sim can be used to call 112.
Sure. If you live in an area where kids may need to reach out, sure, give them a loaner phone or something, or one of those watches that can only contact a fixed set of numbers (you and trusted emergency contacts).
They where in NL though, you just wheren't allowed to have them in class. But a lot of people here cycle to school and sometimes though roads that aren't that safe so in that case it was handy to have a mobile phone to call with.
I was super shocked when I saw kids using their phones and laptops in class. When I was in school, the moment your phone went off it was confiscated and you had to pay to get it back at the end of the day. It created this culture amongst the kids that no matter who you were, if your phone went off, people will have coughing fits and make noise to cover it up. Super funny every time it happened too.
As a 1998 French Zoomer, they were never allowed in class, and only allowed at recess in high school.
Who would have thought?
Wow, no way, I never would have thought )
With nothing else but the blank walls and the cruel clock now students have nowhere else to turn to to pass the time but listening to teacher blab his time-filling spiel. If they're very lucky, the students might learn a single thing that matters before days end, but of course that remains exceedingly unlikely.
view more: next ›