Yesterday I tweeted about the positive benefits we encountered at a previous school when we eliminated mobile phones. Just to be clear, I don't think it was JUST because of mobile phone use. That would be too simplistic. It seems pretty obvious that when we have issues with wellbeing or behaviour; gaming, social media and other online entertainments are (important) confounding factors. No sensible leader can hope to improve community mental health outcomes, behaviour or results just by banning phones (or indeed "just" by doing *any* one thing). Having said that, obviously when we eliminated phones students could not use them to cyber-bother each other. Take a bow captain obvious. They participated in more non-phone related activities that were more physically active and outwardly social at breaktimes and they spoke to each other more. Sound the obviousness claxon. Finally, they were less distracted by their phones because there were no phones to distract them from their learning. Hark the obviousness does sing.
The question is not whether these things happened as a result of no-tech, they obviously did, it's whether they actually resulted in more wellbeing for our students. It turns out there are a group of researchers determined to overturn the "myth" that more screen time leads to reduced wellbeing, using (amongst others) the following study https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-018-0506-1 with commentary from one of the authors (who was incredibly responsive and helpful) here: https://socialsciences.nature.com/users/200472-amy-orben/posts/42763-beyond-cherry-picking. The study finds no statistically significant relationship between screen time use and wellbeing and is based on quite substantial data using a particularly rigorous methodology (so I am told).
I don't want to be the tone police but this was tough going. I felt a little overwhelmed and underqualified when faced by such a prestigious group of interlocutors. At first, I was blocked by the main author of the study. When I questioned being blocked by this apparently very open academic (it having been suggested I ask him directly) he was insulting. Others in the group then affirmed, rather patronisingly, that it was a badge of honour to be insulted by this academic as he was so prestigious. It's surprising to me that people who hope their research can make an impact on the real world of schools can be quite so publically derisive. Regardless, I battled on and was told by an observer (also a pro-tech academic) that these world-leading academics knew way more than me so I should just listen to them and agree. What would I have to contribute having worked for 10 years in education as a teacher and administrator? I had my administration credentials subtly questioned: "why did you leave the school?" and was told that I shouldn't make any statements about improved outcomes in my school without having researchers confirm it for me. These were the experts, they knew more than me and I should stop arguing. One wonders why academics think teachers don't listen to them enough.... Top tip, the medium is the message.
Anyway. I still have the following questions, not that I think they will bother answering them as I am sure they have more important things to do such as arguing with more high profile people who disagree with them about the data.
1) Fat tails: this is a Nassim Taleb phrase so apologies if I am using it wrong. I get that there is overall perhaps not a simplistic linear relationship between the amount of screen time and wellbeing (thanks to the authors for this ) but it does seem implausible to expect a linear relationship between time spent and (lack of) wellbeing in the first place. Take an example of someone being bullied, presumably, they would turn off their phones and hide from it. That's to say the relationship between wellbeing and tech is more subtle and multi-faceted than more screens = less wellbeing or fewer screens = greater wellbeing. The one-off super-awful cases, how are they included? They really don't relate that much to "amount of" screentime, it's more about what happened. The same question for wellbeing issues that come out of the interaction of groups. How is wellbeing distributed within groups and communities and how is tech use also distributed within and without groups?
2) Inappropriate material: kids might be quite happy looking at things society or their parents really don't want them exposed to. They might be quite happy sharing inappropriate things about others, in my experience, this is relatively normal. This normalisation concerns many people. They probably wouldn't report less wellbeing due to this and if they did it wouldn't be right away. If parents want schools to keep kids safe they should be able to guarantee kids wouldn't be able to access things they would not be able to at home.
3) Outdated data: The data seems to come from 2011 - 2015. According to this report cellphone use has massively increased in the last 3 years. I think most people are concerned about unlimited smartphone access to porn, social media and in particular the ability to take mean photos and immediately share them with large groups. This has increased a lot in the last few years with the massification of smartphones. I wonder when the tipping point was? Obviously, the researchers have to work with what they have got but it seems strange to make such sweeping generalisations about parents concerns today (moral panic) using data from up to 8 years ago. I don't understand the methodology well enough to see how the hypothesis based on the 2011/12 data (a time when only 35% of adults in Ireland used smartphones) translated using the CSA methodology to predictions which were confirmed by the more recent (2015) data. Someone who knows more will no doubt look into it. Hopefully, it will be someone who isn't writing (or has written) a book about how technology is a huge moral panic issue.
4) Context-specificity:. Each situation will be different. All schools should endeavour to be evidence-based and I have had my understanding of education significantly enhanced in the last few years thanks to RCTs in cognitive science. However, if those studies went against my direct experiences as an educator I think I would be right to question them. Being a school leader is like being a football manager, you might be told that a 4-4-2 is the most successful formation statistically but that doesn't mean you don't adjust your tactics to face the team in front of you. Context is everything. In our context, we had good results from bringing back some well-needed balance and not authorising the use of phones. *important note* yes, of course, we could still teach digital citizenship and let kids learn about tech. Phones aren't needed for that.
5) Opportunity-cost: This is one I am less sure about so again, perhaps someone might comment. Isn't one important question left out by the study, what would have happened if they weren't using phones? Screen time might not in itself lead to reduced wellbeing but surely exercise and face-to-face communications might lead to more wellbeing? Certainly w,e saw more kids smiling more often when they were running around playing tag. Can this be measured? I would like to know how.
Cheers!
Comments
Post a Comment