Paul Crone: The word ‘ban’ is too aggressive and confrontational, but we need to reduce the negative impact of smartphones
The smartphone plays an important part in the lives of our young adults – and indeed our own lives. We have all become reliant on our phones for connectivity, access to information, navigation and even simple tasks such as telling the time. Yet we also know the smartphone is distracting, reduces concentration, decreases interpersonal social interaction and plays a central role in many, if not all, incidents of bullying. Teachers will anecdotally refer to the smartphone as the “scourge of the classroom”, describing it as the biggest single impediment to deep engagement in activities and learning.
From the perspective of the school leader, the word “ban” is aggressive and confrontational. Teenagers, by their nature, are exploring and challenging their environment, and banning something will be seen as a challenge by them. And they are more resourceful than we sometimes give them credit for. For example, many students will bring two phones to the Gaeltacht, one for the box and a “burner phone” to use. So smartphone use is an issue that needs to be tackled and we need to look at the solution creatively.
What is clear from the perspective of the school is that we need to reduce the negative impact that the smartphone is having on the school environment. We need to remove it from use during the school day and reduce students’ reliance on it. This, we expect, will improve engagement in the classroom and enhance the interaction of the students with their teachers and with each other. This is not a new issue for schools – it is a topic that has dominated many staff meetings throughout the country. So, how do schools achieve their aims?
Virtually every school in the country has a mobile-phone policy that removes the phone from use in school. This is achieved through collaboration and partnership. Development and implementation of the mobile-phone policy are achieved when there is buy-in from the parents and students, when everyone understands the reasons for the policy and everyone has had their say on the implementation. Many schools operate their policy on the basis of “if we see the phone, we will take it”. The phone is generally returned at the end of the school day or directly to the parent. This works as everyone understands the rationale. The Junior Cycle promotes digital literacy skills along with student autonomy, responsibility and independence. Mitigating the negative impact of the smartphone in schools requires three essential components:
1. A partnership approach with students and parents
2. Continuity and enhancement of the ICT grant for schools, eliminating the necessity for the smartphone
3. Open dialogue to support students to self-regulate and manage themselves in the new world where instant gratification, information overload and fear of missing out (Fomo) put huge pressure on our young adults.
The current programme for government has a commitment to hold a Citizens’ Assembly on the Future of Education that would promote national debate on what we want from our education system. Unfortunately, that is not going to happen in the lifetime of the current Government. However, I believe it would be relatively easy to achieve a consensus on a number of aspirations – including that our students should be well rounded, content, ambitious, confident and well prepared for the next phase of their working and personal lives. This must be our priority, so let us approach the issue of smartphones from an education perspective and embrace the learning opportunity that is presented to us. The blanket ban is not the way forward in post-primary schools.
Paul Crone is the director of the National Association of Principals and Deputies (NAPD). He was previously the director of schools for the City of Dublin Education and Training Board and principal in Old Bawn Community School
Megan Reynolds and Maryam Esfandiari: We need to hear from children and adolescents on the smartphone ban
Genuinely held concerns among adults regarding smartphones are understandable. However, there is no research evidence in Ireland to suggest that smartphone bans are effective in addressing those concerns. International research on the effectiveness of smartphones is at best conflicting and, in many cases, findings do not show that bans reduce cyberbullying nor enhance student wellbeing/mental health.
This year, Australian researchers at Queensland University of Technology and the University of Queensland found that there is limited robust evidence to support smartphone bans in schools. Instead, they concluded that schools should emphasise the importance of teaching digital literacy and responsible device use. Otherwise, children and adolescents will not have the appropriate skills to safely navigate the digital world.
Last year, the largest study ever of internet use and wellbeing was conducted jointly by Tilburg University and Oxford University involving 2.4 million participants in 168 countries. They found that individuals (including children) with internet access and/or mobile internet access reported greater levels of life satisfaction, positive experiences online, experiences of purpose, and physical, community and social wellbeing, and lower levels of negative experiences. These results did not provide evidence supporting the view that smartphones actively promote or harm wellbeing/mental health.
Often commentators point out that the increase in mental health issues among children and adolescents over the past 20 years has coincided with the increase of smartphones. However, this is too simplistic and ignores several other factors that have occurred in children’s and adolescents’ lives over the same period. Research on mental health and social media use among adolescents is conflicting, suggesting the issue at hand is nuanced. Research has found that positive supervision of internet access within households is more effective than restrictive approaches. Maybe schools could try positive supervision to reduce negative outcomes of smartphone misuse. Positive supervision includes conversations to promote children’s understanding and critical analysis of online content, or shared internet use, with the intent of establishing trust and allowing adolescents to view adults as role models for good internet use.
Restrictive approaches, such as smartphone bans, may have unintended negative effects, which include preventing children and adolescents from developing their own self-regulation strategies for their smartphone usage and disregarding children’s online rights, such as seeking and receiving information or support. Adolescents are more likely to use phones to maintain friendships, so removing access to smartphones can isolate them from their friends outside of school, and from their families in the case of safety when going to and from school. Bans may also exclude them from using resources, especially adolescents that may be dependent on translation or interpretation services, such as migrants and deaf or hard-of-hearing students.
While adult’s voices have been heard loudly in this debate, other important voices have yet to be heard – the voices of children and adolescents. In the past, we have failed to listen adequately to children and young people about issues that directly affect them, so it is important that we do this now. Over the past few months with funding from the Department of Education, we have been conducting research at Dublin City University’s Anti-Bullying Centre across primary and post-primary schools to capture students’ experiences of smartphone use and bans. It would be best if any plans to regulate smartphone use in schools were delayed until this research is completed and there is a fuller understanding of how such bans are working (or not working) in Irish schools. Finally, as a society, we must ask ourselves: is banning smartphones in schools the best solution to protect adolescents online? Are there other options that we have not yet explored? These questions should be answered before any enactment of an extreme approach that is unlikely to be implementable or effective.
Dr Megan Reynolds and Dr Maryam Esfandiari are postdoctoral researchers in digital safety at DCU Anti-Bullying Centre
- Listen to our Inside Politics Podcast for the latest analysis and chat
- Sign up for push alerts and have the best news, analysis and comment delivered directly to your phone
- Find The Irish Times on WhatsApp and stay up to date