Over on Mastodon (which I’m spending even MORE time on since Meta cancelled me for posting…K-12 education content and reposting pictures of cats and dogs doing silly stuff?), TeachPaperless makes this point:
Sweden’s schools are buzzing with change: phones banned for ages 6-16 (high schoolers get a pass… for now). While I see potential for phones in hybrid learning, let’s face it – they’re usually more Snapchat than study aid. Are we sacrificing tech literacy or boosting focus? 🤔📱🇸🇪
Sweden’s schools aren’t the only one who see sense is banning smartphones:
Democratic officials in California, New York and Virginia are urging school leaders to restrict student cellphone usage. If they implement such rules, schools in those states would join a growing number of districts that ban the devices. USA Today
Let’s take a moment to consider my responses to TeachPaperless' points, as well as consider evidence available. This isn’t a scientifically written rebuttal, it’s for a social media argument where TeachPaperless and I are both technology advocates, but his assertions are ones I find worthy of exploring and refuting. The goal isn’t to prove those espoused ideas wrong, but to get to the truth, as much as possible of what is being asserted.
The Short Version
The short version?
Smartphones aren’t the best tool for reading support and comprehension. Adults' smartphone use differs from students', who need to learn productivity without tech shortcuts (this has implications for AI in Education debate). Smartphones outside class lead to distractions; high-effect size instructional strategies offer more benefits.
Do you agree or disagree? Why?
Response #1: Paper and Pencil Trumps Smartphones
Here’s my initial response to his post:
Pencil/paper is where the magic happens when it comes to long-term information retention. Edtech is not required, just a nice to have for students. We have to stop thinking of schools as Technical Training vehicles (“kids need to know how to use the tech of the future”) and focus on nuts and bolts of learning. Studies show that it can take up to 20 minutes for a student’s brain to refocus on learning after using a smartphone in class.
That last piece is kinda crazy, isn’t it? No wonder that anyone who reads the research is calling for a ban on smartphones. Twenty minutes to refocus means the class period is over. I suspect that the reason is that no one simply uses their smartphone for learning, research, communication, or collaboration for academic purposes only. When you pick up your smartphone, you immediately connect to all the PERSONAL ways it empowers those uses. And, life is a big distraction to academic work alone. Once distracted, students have to find their way back.
Why wrestle with this in schools at all? The purpose of schools isn’t that of a workplace. K-12 students are expected to learn to focus. Adults in a workplace should already know how; either they do, or their work suffers and unemployment follows.
Response #2: The Scientific Consensus
So, what’s the scientific consensus on smartphones in classrooms? The research is in, and you may be surprised to learn the results:
The scientific consensus generally supports the idea that smartphones can be significant distractions in the classroom, potentially hindering learning. Multiple studies have shown that smartphone use during class is associated with lower academic performance and reduced attention.
The scientific consensus leans towards limiting their use in classrooms due to their significant potential for distraction and negative impact on learning outcomes.
One of the hardest things to do in the face of new evidence is to change your mind. We need some more systematic disconfirmation in our lives.
Systematic Disconfirmation: A Quick Sidetrip
The purpose of systematic disconfirmation is to root out confirmation bias. You know, when you believe something that agrees with what you think. In the case of smartphones, there is a belief that smartphones are technology that can make a positive impact on student classroom learning. This is an old belief from the Ed Tech jedis of long ago.
New evidence shows that this belief–that smartphone use in classrooms brings something worthwhile to classroom learning–is inaccurate. More evidence (it is a 20-minute focus disruptor) gathering has shown it to be MORE of a distraction and may have a resulting negative impact on learning outcomes.
You can read the results of systematic disconfirmation process applied to smartphones here. What does it boil down to?
There are conditions under which smartphones can be beneficial. But I would argue that those conditions required a teacher who knows how to manage discipline and use technology. This may be a rare combination in schools today.
Let’s stick to what works, no?
Smartphones in K-3 and 4-5 grade levels distract more than the high-effect size instructional strategies, with distraction percentages of 70% and 60%, respectively. The high-effect size instructional strategies generally have lower distraction percentages, ranging from 15% to 30%. The conditions for enhancement and distraction are derived from the studies provided, focusing on structured use, teacher guidance, and integration into lesson plans as factors that contribute to learning enhancement. Conversely, unstructured use, lack of oversight, and recreational activities are associated with distractions.
Wait, One More Point
TeachPaperless makes an additional point:
Yes, I agree that methods for utilizing smartphones in schools have been underwhelming so far, except during the pandemic and with BYOD (Bring Your Own Device) initiatives. However, these are edge cases. Nevertheless, there are many benefits to using digital tools in class:
- Reading support and comprehension can be greatly enhanced for students.
- Teachers can be more effective and collaborate better with colleagues when planning classes.
- Students can continue work outside the classroom when needed to finish assignments.
These digital tools offer advantages beyond just smartphones, supporting both teaching and learning processes.
To counter these points, consider the following:
Point 1: Reading Support and Comprehension
Evidence suggests that smartphones are NOT the most effective tool for enhancing reading support and comprehension (e.g. Reciprocal Teaching is one high-effect instructional strategy, Repeated Readings, etc.) purpose. Excessive smartphone use leads to:
- decreased attention span and
- reduced reading comprehension.
What’s more, the distraction potential of smartphones in younger grade levels (K-3 and 4-5) outweighs their potential benefits for reading support and comprehension.
Point 2: Teacher Effectiveness and Collaboration
This is a valid point. Smartphones are not the only digital tools and platforms that teachers have access to. Uses of smartphones by adults, though, is a different argument than banning smartphones for students. Teachers are working to optimize productivity, students must do the hard work to learn how to be productive. Smartphones and technology short-circuit the learning that students must engage in.
Point 3: Continuing Work Outside the Classroom
Using smartphones outside the classroom opens the door to distractions and decreased productivity. Evidence suggests that high-effect size instructional strategies, such as direct instruction, classroom discussion, and problem-based teaching, offer more substantial benefits for student learning than the flexibility provided by smartphones.
Let’s take a look at some info about how smartphones enhance or distract students.
Smartphone Use in Classrooms: Conditions for Enhancement and Distraction
Ok, these percentages are a little sketchy, but I ask you, if 40% distraction is acceptable in a grade 9-12 classroom? If your student(s) are distracted for 40% of the time, is that acceptable loss of instructional time?
Table: Conditions for Enhancement and Distraction by Grade Level
| Grade Level | Conditions for Enhancement | Estimated Enhancement Percentage | Conditions for Distraction | Estimated Distraction Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K-3 | Structured use, educational apps, teacher guidance | 30% | Unstructured use, lack of teacher oversight | 70% |
| 4-5 | Integrated into lesson plans, monitored use, interactive learning tools | 40% | Recreational use, notifications, lack of self-regulation | 60% |
| 6-8 | Collaborative projects, controlled access to resources, teacher training | 50% | Social media, texting, multitasking | 50% |
| 9-12 | Self-directed learning, research tools, time management skills | 60% | Social media, notifications, academic dishonesty | 40% |
Compare that table for smartphone use to the one below:
High-Effect Size Instructional Strategies: Conditions for Enhancement and Distraction
Table: Conditions for Enhancement and Distraction by Instructional Strategy
| Instructional Strategy | Conditions for Enhancement | Estimated Enhancement Percentage | Conditions for Distraction | Estimated Distraction Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jigsaw Method | Structured group work, peer teaching, teacher guidance | 70% | Lack of group cohesion, inadequate teacher support | 30% |
| Classroom Discussion | Facilitated by teacher, focused on learning objectives, respectful dialogue | 80% | Unstructured, off-topic, lack of participation | 20% |
| Direct Instruction | Clear lesson plans, teacher expertise, student engagement | 85% | Overly rigid, lack of student interaction, too much lecturing | 15% |
| Concept Maps | Visual organization, teacher guidance, student collaboration | 75% | Overly complex, lack of clear objectives, inadequate teacher support | 25% |
| Service Learning | Community engagement, clear learning objectives, reflection | 80% | Lack of community buy-in, inadequate reflection, too much focus on service over learning | 20% |
| Problem-Based Teaching | Real-world applications, teacher guidance, student collaboration | 85% | Overly complex problems, lack of clear objectives, inadequate teacher support | 15% |
Table #1
Note:
- The percentages are estimates based on the general trends observed in the literature and should be interpreted with caution.
- The conditions for enhancement and distraction are derived from the studies provided, focusing on the structured use of smartphones, teacher guidance, and the integration of technology into lesson plans as factors that contribute to learning enhancement. Conversely, unstructured use, lack of oversight, and recreational activities are associated with distractions.
References:
- [1][2][3][4]
Citations: [1] www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/artic… [2] www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/artic… [3] www.edweek.org/leadershi… [4] stockton.edu/ctld/docu… [5] www.cmu.edu/heinz/ite… [6] www.lexialearning.com/blog/how-…
Table #2
Note:
- The percentages are estimates based on the general trends observed in the literature and should be interpreted with caution.
- The conditions for enhancement and distraction are derived from the studies provided, focusing on structured use, teacher guidance, and integration into lesson plans as factors that contribute to learning enhancement. Conversely, unstructured use, lack of oversight, and recreational activities are associated with distractions.
References:
- [1] Direct Instruction has been shown to effectively control for outside variables that have traditionally prohibited academic achievement.
- [2] Hattie effect size list - 256 Influences Related To Achievement
- [3] Does Service-Learning Increase Student Learning?: A Meta-Analysis
- [4] An analysis of the strength of jigsaw in teaching and learning thesis
Citations:
[1] www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/artic… [2] visible-learning.org/hattie-ra… [3] www.depts.ttu.edu/servicele… [4] repository.ar-raniry.ac.id/id/eprint… [5] www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/artic… [6] uijrt.com/articles/… [7] nylc.org/lessons-f… [8] www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/artic… [9] www.cmu.edu/heinz/ite…