Should we ban mobile phones in school?

17470913285_bbda8cf99a_k

It seems that the hardest part of writing any research is coming up with a good title.

Earlier this month King & Baatartogtokh published a paper examining the theory of disruptive innovation that was made famous in the book The Innovators Dilemma. They found (8 years after publication..) that less than 10% of the case studies cited in what has become something of a management bible actually demonstrated the theory in action. Their paper shifted ‘disruptive innovation’ from being a goal all companies should aim at to an observation that occurs in rare cases.

It should have been huge news, but they gave their work the less than exciting title of ‘How Useful is the Theory of Disruptive Innovation‘ and nobody seems to have paid much attention.

In the ed tech space we seem to be going through a phase of coming up with more sensationalist titles and abstracts to get work noticed.

The problem with this is people still don’t seem to be reading the papers, but instead come up with a version of what they think it might say based on a few lines at the start.

Which is nice.

The recent media hype around banning mobile phones is a pretty good example of this. Tracing back, it seems the source is a Centre for Economic Performance paper published in May.

They went with a fairly neutral title of ‘Ill Communication: Technology, Distraction and Student Performance’. But there’s a couple of lines in the  abstract that suggest something bigger is within:

“…we find that student performance in high stakes exams significantly increases post ban.”

“results indicate that these increases in performance are driven by the lowest achieving students.”

And they finish it off with:

“restricting mobile phone use can be a low-cost policy to reduce educational inequalities.”

All of which sounds like we should be rethinking our policy of allowing smartphones in lessons.

The study itself is interesting, and the method is strong. They have a large data set (91 schools) and have controlled for other variables (such as policy or leadership change) that might have had an impact on results.

The impressive results show an improvement in test scores of 6.41% of a standard deviation for the student body as a whole, 14.23% for students in the lowest quartile of prior achievement gain after a mobile phone ban.

But what is missing in the coverage of this story that I saw is the nature of mobile usage in these schools before the ban. The key line from the conclusion:

“these findings do not discount the possibility that mobile phones could be a useful learning tool if their use is properly structured.”

Somewhat less eye catching than where we started.

What I take away from this study is that students will become distracted if not engaged in their task (whether that task includes ‘technology’ or not), and that smart phones are distracting things. But, while the research did find that a ban had an impact in these schools they also acknowledge that making use of the tools for learning could do the same.

Certainly a ban would be easier to implement than the kind of large scale curriculum redesign and training required to include smartphones in lessons, but this paper shouldn’t discourage schools who have started down the BYOD route. Mobile devices could be a distraction and there are certainly lessons where they should remain switched off, but they could equally be used for good too.

Read the full discussion paper here.
Great coverage of The Innovators Dilemma story at The Chronicle of Higher Education. Go read.
Image CC licensed on Flickr by JapanExperterna.se

 

Selective Attention as a Metaphor for the Research Process

Watch.. (if you’re still under your Internet-proof rock and have somehow managed to miss it…)

As I see it, there are two ways of missing the gorilla in the research process.

The intentional

First, the intentional. You throw your Harry Potter invisibility cloak over the big monkey and choose to ignore it. 

This could be entirely your fault. Because a certain strand of evidence doesn’t back your theory,  or you dislike the work of another author so don’t read it, or just don’t bother to do your searching very well.

Or, it could be the fault of your environment. Maybe your institution doesn’t have access to the right materials, or you don’t have the funding to purchase them. Or, you just don’t have the time to give it the attention it deserves.

The unintentional

The cape is on the ape before you knew there was going to be an ape.

It might be the thing you hadn’t considered. Much like one of those choose your own adventure books, your research could take you down a particular route and you entirely miss other options. How many pages down the Google search do you go?

Or, it could be about the technology. Whether it’s the search algorithm prioritising results above others or your organisation/ISP/government filtering certain content from you.

An argument for high quality research

All of which clearly points towards planning the research method being just as important as choosing the topic when it comes to my upcoming dissertation. Time to open that textbook

Safe to Fail


I’ve been spending a fair bit of time in WoW recently, attempting to mash it into the PLTS framework to see what comes out the other end. More on that to come. In this post I want to talk about failing and how we’re not doing it nearly as often as we should. Continue…