• RedditIsALostCause@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    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 :)

    • dukemirage@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      I named the groups, go and find their other sources. I don’t really have time for this because I really do have a kid to parent, without even owning an iPad. I hope they don’t grow up to be so rude and obnoxious like some other people.

        • dukemirage@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          23 hours ago

          I just relayed an opinion I’ve heard on the radio. You are being weirdly aggressive. I‘d rather raise a kind human and I‘m fine if they can’t use their phones in the classroom. Byebye

          • RedditIsALostCause@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            17 hours ago

            You did not just relay an opinion you heard on the radio. You didn’t even it frame it as that. Your initial reply stated your opinions as if they were objective facts lol. I don’t know why you kept arguing with me if you agreed the whole time lol. Tryna gaslight me as if I started this little back and forth between us is crazy. Buh-bye weirdo.