| ▲ | alienbaby a day ago |
| Ok, but how about student grades? I wouldn't have expected any impact on mental health resulting from a school ban considering the exposure they get every other hour of the day. |
|
| ▲ | tfirst a day ago | parent | next [-] |
| no measurable impact on grades in the US from locking phones in pouches, with measurable decrease in cell activity: https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w35132/w351... school phone bans in brazil appear to increase test scores by 0.06 SD (although the identification strategy is a bit sketchy): https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w35233/w352... |
|
| ▲ | BLKNSLVR a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I was thinking the same thing, the outcome they're measuring is unrelated to the reason for the instituted change. Study: Schoolwide phone bans show no significant impact on road death toll. |
| |
| ▲ | marcus_holmes a day ago | parent [-] | | I think the point is all the "kids are getting damaged by phone use" talking points. It's using the school bans as a useful study; we can see what happens to kids if they're not allowed to use phones here. iirc a similar study on the Aussie age ban is finding similar results; basically no difference. Some kids benefit, others suffer. Agree that a study on grades would be useful too | | |
| ▲ | PaulDavisThe1st a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Isn't it the inverse? i.e we think it is bad for students to have phones in schools, but it might be a problem for the students if we ban them, so let's do the test ... yep, no problem for the students, so let's definitely ban them for educational reasons? | | |
| ▲ | marcus_holmes a day ago | parent [-] | | yeah, that makes sense. Be interesting to see how that study goes. And ofc AI is busy messing all of this up. |
| |
| ▲ | chneu a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Why would anyone really benefit from just a few hours off their phones? That's like saying not eating for a few hours makes up for eating 4000 calories at dinner. | | |
| ▲ | bmacho a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Maybe there is a difference in phone addiction management if they are allowed to use it every 45 minutes and if they are forced to be abstinent for 7 hours straight. I personally would've guessed many immediate positive effects just from a phone ban in school, TFA claims they have a measurement against that. | |
| ▲ | marcus_holmes a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | maybe it's more like banning smoking - stopping a smoker for 8 hours a day would definitely positively impact their health, even if they find it incredibly annoying. | |
| ▲ | margalabargala a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | It could encourage face to face socialization during those hours, which could improve mental health. | | |
| ▲ | JuniperMesos a day ago | parent [-] | | Or it could make it worse, depending a lot on highly-specific details of the school and the student's personality. A lot of people really hated the social environment of the schools they were forced to attend as children, and carry the scars into adulthood. On the other hand, a lot of other people liked doing things with their friends at school and have fond memories of it. |
|
| |
| ▲ | jethro_tell a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Wat? Why would there be a difference? It only takes an hour a day or less of social media with an algorithm designed to make you anxious to really affect your mental health, how would limiting available social media time to 8 hours help? | | |
|
|
|
| ▲ | baxtr a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > I wouldn't have expected any impact on mental health resulting AFAIK declining mental health was the main driver of the bans - put forward by its proponents like Jonathan Haidt, author of "The Anxious Generation." |
