A year following the government's decision to prohibit mobile phones at schools with the aim of assisting students in concentrating better and minimizing classroom disruptions, we're starting to observe the implementation process and gauge its effectiveness.
In the course of this procedure, our latest study sought out the opinions of younger individuals regarding the prohibition. Not surprisingly, they shared numerous thoughts on the matter.
Schools across the globe, including in Australia , France, the United Kingdom , China, and certain areas within the United States have enacted comparable restrictions. The underlying rationale across these regions has been to assist students in improving their academic performance.
When New Zealand The ban took effect in April 2024 when the Prime Minister did so. Christopher Luxon mentioned it was necessary to eliminate the distractions so children could focus on learning and achieving.
However, studies indicate that such restrictions frequently fail to achieve their intended outcomes. To illustrate, a recent study conducted in the UK with more than 1,200 participants revealed no substantial distinction in academic performance or student well-being between educational institutions enforcing stringent mobile device prohibitions and those adopting lenient approaches.
There were numerous queries when the ban was implemented regarding its enforcement. To understand what transpired within educational institutions and gauge the genuine sentiments of teenagers, we sought out insights directly from students. Our discussions included 77 adolescents between ages 12 to 18 across 25 different schools nationwide. Opinions varied among them; some approved of the restrictions, others did not, while a portion remained uncertain.
Mixed feelings
A lot of students expressed varied sentiments regarding the restrictions. Some acknowledged that these rules cut down on distractions and provided an opportunity to take breaks from smartphones. One student elaborated: "Otherwise, we'd be glued to our phones throughout the entire day, evening, and night, which wouldn't be good for our mental health."
However, some students mentioned that the prohibition led to the emergence of fresh issues.
Initially, several students experienced stress and anxiety because they could not reach their parents or guardians throughout the day. Additionally, they mentioned that the guidelines were not consistently clear or equitable. While certain educators enforced rigorous standards, others did not apply such rigor. Furthermore, it was observed that some instructors would use their mobile devices during lessons, whereas this privilege was denied to the students.
The apparent double standard—where teachers could use phones while students couldn't—left numerous respondents feeling annoyed and unjustly handled. In certain instances, this led to increased secrecy regarding phone usage among students. A student commented, "Although we're prohibited from using our phones, everybody still sneakily does so."
A lack of consultation
Many students mentioned that their opinions were not sought prior to the implementation of these restrictions. It seemed to them that adults created the regulations without consulting or considering their views. An individual we interviewed stated: "It seems like they simply prohibit everything, assuming it will resolve the issue."
A lot of people couldn't grasp the reason behind the restriction, particularly as they were required to continue using laptops and other tech during lessons.
New findings reveal that over 80 percent of pupils in Aotearoa New Zealand believe that technology in classrooms is a distraction—not limited to smartphones alone.
So far, some students have discovered cunning methods to bypass the phone ban.
At an Auckland school, pupils began utilizing walkie-talkies rather than mobile phones to remain in touch with their classmates.
Instances such as these demonstrate that restrictions do not necessarily alter behavior as intended. They may merely cause students to believe that adults underestimate their actual technological proficiency.
Adolescents as proactive problem solvers
The youth in our study provided some substitutes for the prohibition.
Several proposed permitting mobile devices during breaks and lunch hours. This would enable students to remain connected without disrupting lessons. Additionally, they mentioned that educators should demonstrate balanced screen time behavior rather than merely establishing guidelines.
According to students' feedback, it seems that instructing both teachers and learners on using phones in moderation would be more beneficial than prohibiting their usage completely.
The research conducted at the Digital Wellness Lab advocates for this balanced strategy, prioritizing skill development rather than imposing restrictions. However, for such an approach to succeed, adults require assistance as well. Both educators and parents must receive proper training and access to necessary materials to effectively mentor young individuals—additionally, their opinions regarding the prohibition should be assessed through surveys.
Prohibiting mobile devices does not address the larger concern of teaching young individuals how to utilize technology in a safe and responsible manner. Schools aiming to truly assist their pupils should look past uniform regulations and adopt more comprehensive strategies.
Our findings indicate that young individuals do not merely consume technological resources passively; instead, they actively tackle problems. They seek involvement in discussions—and as contributors to solutions.
This would entail substituting strict prohibitions with constructive dialogues between youth and elders to develop equitable and pragmatic online protocols, ensuring advantages for all involved.
Cara Swit serves as an Associate Professor within the School of Health Sciences at the University of Canterbury. Aaron Hapuku holds the position of Lecturer in the same school. Helena Cook works as a Lecturer in the School of Social and Cultural Studies at the university. Jennifer Smith is a Senior Lecturer affiliated with the Faculty of Education at the University of Canterbury. This piece was originally published in The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. You can read the original article [here](https://theconversation.com). original article .
The Independent embodies numerous values, frequently doing so distinctively. It maintains independence from political parties and forms its own opinions on contemporary matters. Throughout its existence, The Independent has consistently promoted challenging discussions and debates. Established in 1986 with the aim of introducing a fresh perspective, it has since initiated various campaigns addressing topics such as the legalization of cannabis and supporting the Final Say Brexit initiative.
