Technology

42878 readers

264 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

alyaza@beehaw.org

TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org

gyrfalcon@beehaw.org

rs5th@beehaw.org

coldredlight@beehaw.org

SemioticStandard@beehaw.org

TheRtRevKaiser@kbin.social

remington@beehaw.org

‘Close to zero impact’: US study casts doubt on effect of phone ban in schools (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 11 hours ago by Powderhorn@beehaw.org to c/technology@beehaw.org

15 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Strict bans on mobile phones in schools have “close to zero” impact on student learning and show no evidence of improvements in attendance or online bullying, a study has found.

Researchers at US universities including Stanford and Duke looked at nearly 1,800 US schools where students’ phones were kept in locked pouches and found little or no differences in outcomes compared with similar schools without strict bans.

The report concluded that among schools instituting a ban: “For academic achievement, average effects on test scores are consistently close to zero.”

The results will come as a disappointment to teaching unions and campaigners in England who backed the government’s recent move to restrict the use of mobile phones in schools. A ban is likely to come into force next year.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] reallykindasorta@slrpnk.net 20 points 10 hours ago (2 children)

Keep in mind the paper is a white paper (not peer reviewed) and it is sponsored by the Bezos Family Foundation and Walton Family. Personally taking it with a grain of salt and waiting for some experts to weigh in who are not economists (like most of the authors are) since I don’t feel like combing through this 100 page document.

[–] spit_evil_olive_tips@beehaw.org 7 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (2 children)

it gets even stupider than that:

We acknowledge funding from Arnold Ventures

an American company that is the philanthropic vehicle of billionaires John D. Arnold and Laura Arnold

who is this John Arnold guy anyway...let's see...and....oh

since February 2024, is a member of the board of directors of Meta.

oh, and fun fact, it's not even a real fucking charity:

The Laura and John Arnold Foundation was initially created as a philanthropic organization, but was restructured as a limited liability company and renamed Arnold Ventures in January 2019. The organization's LLC structure is intended to allow it to operate with more flexibility.

so he's on the board of directors for Meta, which among other things owns Instagram...and he has a side business that pretends to be a charity even though it's not, and it funds publication of a "study" saying no, teenagers having cell phones 24/7 is totally fine actually.

the tobacco industry used to pay people to wear white lab coats and say cigarettes didn't cause cancer. it's tempting to think of ourselves as more savvy than they were, and look back in hindsight and say "how could people have fallen for such obvious bullshit?"

well...

[–] Crotaro@beehaw.org 3 points 22 minutes ago

Wow that casts a healthy dose of doubt on the entire study. Thank you for pointing it all out so thoroughly!

[–] reallykindasorta@slrpnk.net 3 points 3 hours ago

I had seen the LLC thing and raised my eyebrows at the projects listed on their wiki, but didn’t see the META board thing, good catch. Everything is both awful and exactly as expected.

[–] anachronist@midwest.social 4 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (1 children)

The Fox Family Institute for Poultry Studies determines that hen house doors should be left open

[–] reallykindasorta@slrpnk.net 1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Interesting that Guardian didn’t see fit to mention it was a white paper unless I missed something.

[–] PolarKraken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

Just on the epistemological tip, how is it being a white paper more relevant than having Bezos, Waltons, and more (of the same) sponsors?

[–] reallykindasorta@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 hour ago

Typically when a news article mentions a “study” it’s a peer reviewed research article. If it’s a white paper or a working paper that is typically pointed out. Leaving that detail out is notable and probably a purposeful decision by my reckoning.

Generally they don’t mention conflicts of interest even if they’re listed so that bit isn’t especially atypical here to me.