6 ms·

This is an older article. Today, the coalition decided on a measure with 'urgent advice' to not be allowed smartphones, tablets and smartwatches in the classroo

This is an older article. Today, the coalition decided on a measure with 'urgent advice' to not be allowed smartphones, tablets and smartwatches in the classroom [1]. Starting Jan 1st 2024, and so far only for secondary education, though they're deciding on primary education today.Schools are free in how they implement it, could be in the entire building or just classrooms. I don't expect any hard rules any time soon, with the coalition being so divided on the topic. There's been interesting debates in parlement preceding this measure, with several interesting position papers on the topic from researchers, and even student associations [2]. The researchers emphasize that adolescents are much more susceptible to the bad effects of smartphones, due to inexperience with dopamine and its effects on dopamine production, being easier to condition, FOMO. The main adverse effect they name is what they call a 'crumbling brain', with a short attention span unable to focus on one thing for a longer time. An often-repeated soundbyte is that students using smartphones often score in average 1-1.5 points less on tests, on a scale of 1 to 10. I dunno what to think about it. As noted by the student association, it seems like children won't get the chance to learn how to handle the traps smartphones pose. Then again, I was free to use mine in high school and I'm still addicted to the thing :/ [1] https://nos.nl/artikel/2481424-kabinet-geeft-dringend-advies-aan-scholen-telefoon-uit-de-klas https://nos.nl/artikel/2481424-kabinet-geeft-dringend-advies... [2] https://www.tweedekamer.nl/debat_en_vergadering/commissievergaderingen/details?id=2023A01131 https://www.tweedekamer.nl/debat_en_vergadering/commissiever...

ctenb 3y ago
The article says it's published at TUESDAY, 4 JULY 2023 - 14:26. Strange that its information is apparently outdated.
- boredpudding 3y ago
  It's because 'nltimes.nl' is not a serious news outlet. It just translates things and reposts it.
  - ciropantera 3y ago
    I don’t know if this is the case, but I’ve noticed questionable news outlets reposting their own old articles, possibly to game google news search or something
Aerroon 3y ago
I have a hard time believing such researchers. It's just way too politically convenient that they can pull such explanations and numbers out. It always feels as though that these policy advisors can support any position and if it eventually goes wrong then nobody will blame them anyway. I personally think phones definitely shouldn't be used in a classroom. I don't even see what benefit you would get from it, but it definitely shouldn't be legislated over. If a teacher or school wants to ban it then they should be able to.
- meesaltena 3y ago
  > way too politically convenient why do you presuppose a political motive for the researchers? What's political about this?
  - tomsmeding 3y ago
    Independent of any judgement of the particular research at hand: everything about this is political. Lots of people, in particular parents but also others, dislike and fear that young people are losing their life on "screens", i.e. mostly smartphones, gaming. Note the "dislike and fear", which is fully subjective and fundamentally not based on evidence. This is regardless of whether there actually is data to support this position; the fear exists nonetheless, and data can only back it up or contradict their intuition. Most politicians have children, and most of the voting body has children. This is very much a politically charged issue.
    - meesaltena 3y ago
      Thanks. I can see where the person I replied to was coming from now.
  - throwaway98271 3y ago
    It's political because the people pushing for it usually are conservatives who don't like the modern ways of life and/or education. It's questionable whether they actually want to help the society or just force people into their own ways. They might even think they're helping, but actually do the opposite. Researchers often do research based on their world view. Did these people also try to research what happens if they integrate the technology into education and teach children about the possible dangers of it, or did they focus on just whatever could confirm their world view?
akira2501 3y ago
> due to inexperience with dopamine and its effects on dopamine production, being easier to condition, FOMO. I don't understand the reasoning in performing this type of deep analysis. If the purpose of the device is to enhance education, it can be in the classroom. If it it's not, it's essentially a toy, and it has no place in the classroom. Why even bring dopamine in to it?
- im3w1l 3y ago
  A device made with the best of intentions and with many helpful features for enhancing education may turn out to have harmful consequences in practice. Those harmful consequences typically include temptations to have fun instead of productivity and learning. And that's where all those concepts you quote come in.
  - akira2501 3y ago
    That sounds like a concern for teachers making lesson plans, and not for general student expectations.
    - aiisjustanif 3y ago
      That sounds like an ideal world where devices don’t garner attention to make more profit.
  - pas 3y ago
    outcomes matter, intentions don't really. if a device leads to bad outcomes, then it's by definition not a good tool for education in the typical classroom setting. of course it might make sense to then have a very different class that deals with the whole problem of supercharged dependence forming devices and activities.
  - LocalH 3y ago
    The need to separate “fun” from “productivity and learning” is part of the problem. Make learning fun and engaging.
sublinear 3y ago
> inexperience with dopamine and its effects on dopamine production, being easier to condition, FOMO I know this is an unpopular opinion, but this is entirely in the hands of the parents and far from new. You build their mental toughness by taking them under your wing and introducing them to the offline world beyond the walls of home and school.
- WatchDog 3y ago
  I’m not sure what’s worse, the damage done to your child by letting them use a smartphone, or the damage done by not letting them use a smartphone while of their friends use one.
  - sublinear 3y ago
    I didn't say to take away the smartphone. I'm saying that if all they know is home, school, and the internet then they're basically living under a rock. That's not how you should raise a person.
brnt 3y ago
I don't have a kid in school yet, but I see no reason to even give them a phone until they're 12 or so. Reading these messages makes it seem like that no parents do this: these kids always already have phones. How realistic is my intention, parents with schoolgoing kids?
- Aerbil313 3y ago
  Make it until 18. Or even better, until someone finally makes a smartphone that runs necessary apps and opens necessary websites (think Whatsapp, govt websites) but no other app or website (games, social media).
- getwiththeprog 3y ago
  In Australia, I see many kids with phones. I also see many kids doing the sports, library and many other activities. It seems perfectly preventable.
Aerbil313 3y ago
> it seems like children won't get the chance to learn how to handle the traps smartphones pose. No one learns. The bitter fact no one even wants to think about: Almost everyone in the modern society is an addict of digital screens as much as their real life obligations allow them to be.

ctenb 3y ago

The article says it's published at TUESDAY, 4 JULY 2023 - 14:26. Strange that its information is apparently outdated.

boredpudding 3y ago
It's because 'nltimes.nl' is not a serious news outlet. It just translates things and reposts it.
- ciropantera 3y ago
  I don’t know if this is the case, but I’ve noticed questionable news outlets reposting their own old articles, possibly to game google news search or something

Aerroon 3y ago

I have a hard time believing such researchers. It's just way too politically convenient that they can pull such explanations and numbers out. It always feels as though that these policy advisors can support any position and if it eventually goes wrong then nobody will blame them anyway. I personally think phones definitely shouldn't be used in a classroom. I don't even see what benefit you would get from it, but it definitely shouldn't be legislated over. If a teacher or school wants to ban it then they should be able to.

meesaltena 3y ago
> way too politically convenient why do you presuppose a political motive for the researchers? What's political about this?
- tomsmeding 3y ago
  Independent of any judgement of the particular research at hand: everything about this is political. Lots of people, in particular parents but also others, dislike and fear that young people are losing their life on "screens", i.e. mostly smartphones, gaming. Note the "dislike and fear", which is fully subjective and fundamentally not based on evidence. This is regardless of whether there actually is data to support this position; the fear exists nonetheless, and data can only back it up or contradict their intuition. Most politicians have children, and most of the voting body has children. This is very much a politically charged issue.
  - meesaltena 3y ago
    Thanks. I can see where the person I replied to was coming from now.
- throwaway98271 3y ago
  It's political because the people pushing for it usually are conservatives who don't like the modern ways of life and/or education. It's questionable whether they actually want to help the society or just force people into their own ways. They might even think they're helping, but actually do the opposite. Researchers often do research based on their world view. Did these people also try to research what happens if they integrate the technology into education and teach children about the possible dangers of it, or did they focus on just whatever could confirm their world view?

akira2501 3y ago

> due to inexperience with dopamine and its effects on dopamine production, being easier to condition, FOMO. I don't understand the reasoning in performing this type of deep analysis. If the purpose of the device is to enhance education, it can be in the classroom. If it it's not, it's essentially a toy, and it has no place in the classroom. Why even bring dopamine in to it?

im3w1l 3y ago
A device made with the best of intentions and with many helpful features for enhancing education may turn out to have harmful consequences in practice. Those harmful consequences typically include temptations to have fun instead of productivity and learning. And that's where all those concepts you quote come in.
- akira2501 3y ago
  That sounds like a concern for teachers making lesson plans, and not for general student expectations.
  - aiisjustanif 3y ago
    That sounds like an ideal world where devices don’t garner attention to make more profit.
- pas 3y ago
  outcomes matter, intentions don't really. if a device leads to bad outcomes, then it's by definition not a good tool for education in the typical classroom setting. of course it might make sense to then have a very different class that deals with the whole problem of supercharged dependence forming devices and activities.
- LocalH 3y ago
  The need to separate “fun” from “productivity and learning” is part of the problem. Make learning fun and engaging.

sublinear 3y ago

> inexperience with dopamine and its effects on dopamine production, being easier to condition, FOMO I know this is an unpopular opinion, but this is entirely in the hands of the parents and far from new. You build their mental toughness by taking them under your wing and introducing them to the offline world beyond the walls of home and school.

WatchDog 3y ago
I’m not sure what’s worse, the damage done to your child by letting them use a smartphone, or the damage done by not letting them use a smartphone while of their friends use one.
- sublinear 3y ago
  I didn't say to take away the smartphone. I'm saying that if all they know is home, school, and the internet then they're basically living under a rock. That's not how you should raise a person.

brnt 3y ago

I don't have a kid in school yet, but I see no reason to even give them a phone until they're 12 or so. Reading these messages makes it seem like that no parents do this: these kids always already have phones. How realistic is my intention, parents with schoolgoing kids?

Aerbil313 3y ago
Make it until 18. Or even better, until someone finally makes a smartphone that runs necessary apps and opens necessary websites (think Whatsapp, govt websites) but no other app or website (games, social media).
getwiththeprog 3y ago
In Australia, I see many kids with phones. I also see many kids doing the sports, library and many other activities. It seems perfectly preventable.

Aerbil313 3y ago

> it seems like children won't get the chance to learn how to handle the traps smartphones pose. No one learns. The bitter fact no one even wants to think about: Almost everyone in the modern society is an addict of digital screens as much as their real life obligations allow them to be.