“There is nothing so old as warnings about modernity.” – Rebecca Higgitt
“The internet is a reflection of our society and that mirror is going to be reflecting what we see. If we do not like what we see in that mirror the problem is not to fix the mirror, we have to fix society.” – Vint Cerf
Writing in 2015, at a time when many suggested the sky was about to fall as a result of the proliferation of smartphones, Yalda Uhls suggested a more optimistic perspective when she observed that: “We may finally be at a tipping point, one we have seen with every introduction of new media. New data from respected social scientists around the world continues to demonstrate that children are adapting and sometimes thriving as they embrace 21st-century media; these small and incremental changes may be building to permanent change. Perhaps now the hysteria will finally come to an end.” Sadly, the debate continues today with governments and school districts introducing phone and technology bans while an anxious movement grows increasingly vocal in asserting a narrow thesis: smartphones are dangerous and damaging young people.
The response is an attempt to put the genie back in its bottle. While it must be acknowledged that unfettered access to the internet for young people (particularly young children) may have its downsides, that there are aspects to smartphone use and fallout that are very real for some, should we accept the abdication of responsibility for this crucial aspect of our young people’s education, or should we seize this opportunity to equip students properly for a future in which they will flourish in a world in which mobile technology is a reality?
Much of the recent moral hysteria has been inflamed by Jonathan Haidt’s New York Times bestseller, The Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Childhood Is Causing an Epidemic of Mental Illness. It has been argued by many that Haidt’s selective use of data to support his thesis is highly questionable. As Brown has pointed out, for instance: “Haidt cites 476 studies in his book that seem to represent an overwhelming case. But two-thirds of them were published before 2010, or before the period that Haidt focuses on in the book. Only 22 of them have data on either heavy social media use or serious mental issues among adolescents, and none have data on both.” Masnick cautions against the potential negative impact of Haidt’s work by observing that: “as with historic moral panics—parents, schools, and politicians will embrace it, absolving themselves of their own failings in raising children in our modern world and pointing to an easy villain.”
That argument can and will continue, but there is a more fundamental issue at stake here. That issue was best summed up by David Price in his book, Open: How We’ll Work, Live and Learn in the Future: “We teach our children how to cross the road, we don’t ban cars. The blocking of social media sites in schools –the default position in the US and UK –not only inhibits learning, it does nothing to help our kids develop the digital literacy skills (knowing which information sources can be trusted, how to verify accuracy, etc.) they will need beyond school.”
Significantly, Masnick also points out that the figures that constitute Haidt’s “epidemic” are on par with what they were today in the late 1980s and early 1990s, when no social media existed. Haidt’s “scientific” approach is based on a set of conclusions that reveal data correlation, but with little evidence of causation. His claims are inconclusive and portray the most dystopian view of young people and the world they reside in. One of the most important roles educators can play in the lives of our young people is to guide them in their uses of social media and smartphones, particularly when we identify areas of concern. Banning smartphones shuts down this vital dialogue and foolishly drives the issue underground for our assumed convenience.
danah boyd’s prediction from a decade ago was remarkably prescient, though hardly surprising: “The rise of mobile devices is introducing even more challenges, taking the already widespread notion of being “always on” to new levels and creating new pathways for navigating physical spaces. As social media becomes increasingly ubiquitous, the physical and digital will be permanently entangled and blurry. New innovations will introduce new challenges, as people try to reimagine privacy, assert their sense of identity, and renegotiate everyday social dynamics. And if history is any indication, adults are bound to project the same fears and anxieties they have about social media onto whatever new technology captures the imagination of future youth.”
Candice L. Odgers has recently added an interesting insight to the debate. In her recent piece in The Atlantic, Odgers notes that her work allows her to “see what adolescents are really up to on their devices. And it turns out that the story behind teen social-media use is much different from what most adults think.” Odgers’ central thesis is clear: “Since 2008, I have studied 10-to-15-year-olds using their mobile phones, with the goal of testing how a wide range of their daily experiences, including their digital-technology use, influences their mental health. My colleagues and I have repeatedly failed to find compelling support for the claim that digital-technology use is a major contributor to adolescent depression and other mental-health symptoms.” Odgers concludes that, “what my fellow researchers and I see when we connect with adolescents is young people going online to do regular adolescent stuff” and, most crucially, that: “All adolescents will eventually need to know how to safely navigate online spaces, so shutting off or restricting access to smartphones and social media is unlikely to work in the long term. In many instances, doing so could backfire: Teens will find creative ways to access these or even more unregulated spaces, and we should not give them additional reasons to feel alienated from the adults in their lives.”
Boyd has echoed this perspective succinctly: “Growing up in and being a part of networked publics is complicated. The realities that youth face do not fit into neat utopian or dystopian frames, nor will eliminating technology solve the problems they encounter. Networked publics are here to stay. Rather than resisting technology or fearing what might happen if youth embrace social media, adults should help youth develop the skills and perspective to productively navigate the complications brought about by living in networked publics. Collaboratively, adults and youth can help create a networked world that we all want to live in.” (See boyd’s common sense path forward here.)
While Haidt has been articulate in his defence of his claims, our core educational argument should not concern itself with an academic debate, but rather – regardless of that debate – with the fact that we have a professional obligation to work with young people to empower them to use technology wisely and in productive, healthy ways. The reality here has been recently articulated by Eva Wiseman: “It is tempting to dampen our adult anxiety about technology by banning phones for our children, but this is not just impractical, it lacks nuance and empathy. Surely it is a matter of understanding and educating, rather than this grim fear and blunt force.”
If we are truly to put learners first, we need to intentionally design learning environments focused on their needs. While for some the movement to introduce phone bans is a reasonable idea, there are many questions that need to be considered about schools, their practices, and their motivations in this context. Among these questions, I would suggest, we would do well to consider the following questions:
1. Are the learning activities suitably engaging and meaningful to maintain student interest?
2. Do educators leverage the learning potential available to students on their phones?
3. Is there a culture of trust and mutual respect in which all learners can thrive?
4. Is there a robust Digital Citizenship curriculum and guidelines in place that support a constructive learning environment?
5. Do teachers have the disposition to facilitate the integration of tech tools and, crucially, do they have the professional agency to decide on the appropriate use of technology in their classrooms?
6. Where phones are banned, are adults still allowed to use them? If so, why the discrepancy?
7. Most critically, do educators believe in the potential of young people to do amazing things if we trust and support them to do so?
Haidt asks us to be open to the possibility that this is not simply a moral panic. If we do accept that this is a genuine crisis and the concerns are, in fact, real, surely working with young people to mitigate the risks is the responsible way forward? Social media platforms may need regulation, but let’s not conflate this possibility with controls on learners and blanket generalizations. What we need to achieve is balance and it is a far more powerful learning outcome to help young people to self-regulate their tech use than expect them to grow as learners in schools characterised by a restrictive culture of compliance. boyd reminds us that: “Teens are as they have always been, resilient and creative in repurposing technology to fulfil their desires and goals. When they embrace technology, they are imagining new possibilities, asserting control over their lives, and finding ways to be a part of public life. This can be terrifying for those who are intimidated by youth or nervous for them, but it also reveals that, far from being a distraction, social media is providing a vehicle for teens to take ownership over their lives.”
Thinking we can control the internet or social media by banning smartphones is shortsighted at best and likely ill-advised: it is tantamount to sticking our heads in the digital sands. We are poised at a critical moment in the future of education and the futures of our learners. The fact that there is a growing movement to turn our backs on this critical teachable moment is surely a matter of urgency.
References
Cerf, Vint quoted in Ward, Mark. “What the Net Did Next.” BBC News, January 1, 2004, http:// news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3292043.stm.
Yalda T. Uhls, “Parents, Chill. Technology Isn’t Destroying Teens’ Brains.” UCLA Newsroom, December 2, 2015.
Wiseman, Eva. “Banning phones in schools is just another ploy to distract us.” The Guardian. March 3, 2024.
Haidt, Jonathan. The Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Childhood Is Causing an Epidemic of Mental Illness. Penguin, 2024.
Brown, Aaron. “The Bad Science Behind Jonathan Haidt’s Call to Regulate Social Media.” Reason. April 2, 2024.
boyd, danah. It’s Complicated: The Social Lives of Networked Teens. Yale University Press, 2014.
Price, David. OPEN: How We’ll Work, Live and Learn in the Future. Crux Publishing, 2013.
Masnick, Mike. “The Coddling of the American Parent.” Daily Beast. April 21, 2024.
Odgers, Candice L. “The Panic Over Smartphones Doesn’t Help Teens.” The Atlantic. May 21, 2024.
boyd, danah. “Struggling With a Moral Panic Once Again.” Apophenia. April 19, 2024.
maelstrom 