foxnews.com
Study Shows High School Students Spend Significant Time on Phones During School; States Consider Legislation
A Seattle Children's Hospital study found that 25% of high school students spend over two hours daily on their phones during school, prompting states like Colorado to consider legislation limiting student cellphone use during school hours.
- What is the immediate impact of excessive cellphone use during school hours on student performance and behavior?
- A Seattle Children's Hospital study revealed that 25% of 115 tracked high school students spent over two hours on their phones during a typical school day, averaging 1.5 hours, or 27% of their daily phone use. This coincides with growing legislative efforts to curb student cellphone use in schools, such as Colorado's proposed House Bill 1135.
- How do parental concerns and potential legal challenges influence school policies regarding student cellphone use?
- The study highlights a concerning trend of excessive cellphone use among students during school hours, impacting academic performance and attention spans. This aligns with a psychotherapist's observation of increased ADHD diagnoses correlating with heightened screen time, suggesting a link between excessive phone use and cognitive function. Nineteen states already have implemented cellphone restrictions in schools.
- What are the long-term implications of current legislative trends and research findings on student well-being and educational practices?
- The increasing legislative actions and the study's findings suggest a potential for significant changes in school environments. Future implications could include improved academic performance and reduced disciplinary issues, but also potential conflicts with parents and schools regarding student rights and school policies. Further research is needed to fully understand the long-term effects of cellphone use on adolescent development.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The headline and introduction immediately frame the issue as a problem requiring intervention, highlighting the negative aspects of high cellphone use among students. The inclusion of the Colorado bill early in the article reinforces the narrative of a need for regulation. The article frequently uses terms like "cracking down", "terrifying" and "re-wiring their brains" to create an impression that cellphone use in schools is harmful. The order of presentation also emphasizes the negative consequences before presenting any potential counterarguments.
Language Bias
The article uses loaded language to portray cellphone use negatively. Terms like "cracking down," "terrifying," and "re-wiring their brains" are emotive and contribute to a negative framing. More neutral alternatives could include "implementing restrictions," "concerning," and "affecting brain development." The repeated emphasis on negative consequences without balanced discussion of potential benefits also contributes to a biased tone.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the negative impacts of cellphone use in schools, quoting a source who advocates for stricter regulations. However, it omits perspectives from students, educators who support cellphone use for educational purposes, or experts who might argue that the correlation between cellphone use and academic performance is not necessarily causal. The article also doesn't explore potential benefits of cellphone use in schools, such as access to educational apps or emergency communication.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a somewhat simplistic eitheor framing: cellphones in school are bad and must be restricted or schools are failing to address a serious problem. It doesn't fully explore the complexities of responsible cellphone use or the potential for a balanced approach that could mitigate negative consequences while still leveraging potential benefits.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights a negative impact of excessive smartphone use on students