2 ms·
OK, but would these children have done better without using the screens? That is the question not whether students can possibly do well with screens. For exampl
by cudgy 1y ago
OK, but would these children have done better without using the screens? That is the question not whether students can possibly do well with screens. For example, what if the students at the top are less impacted by using screens and would’ve done just as well with books. And at the same time, some of the students in the middle would’ve done better when using books. The analysis you suggest would not catch that.
- renewiltord 1y agoIndeed, that's a question you have which I understand you may be eager to find answers to, but I am primarily focused on the original statement of > ...the excessive use of screens that kills focus and the desire to learn anything that doesn't move Screens killing focus is clearly not backed by evidence. There may be other evidence that shows that when stratifying by percentile achievement, screen use places students at a percentile below where they would be otherwise. But it is clearly false that the use of screens kills focus and the desire to learn anything that doesn't move. Killing focus is an absolute term. You don't have to compare against someone else to determine if focus was killed. If the kids have focus at the end, then it is not killed. And at best it could be slightly reduced. e.g. If you have the hypothesis that mangoes are acutely toxic and kill people you don't have to sample a lot of people. You are claiming a strong effect size. If even 5 people eat mangoes and don't die then the answer is that they are not acutely toxic.