Great! But you have no evidence to support your argument. Your apples to oranges comparison of laptops isn't compelling. Nor am I compelled by your methodology argument, which seems to take issue with testing a hypothesis that phones are a distraction.

thought hitting was better than nothing even when they knew it was net harmful

Once again, we know cellphones are detrimental to learning. This is not a matter of schools failing to adapt to new technology. Tablets, computers, interactive software and more are used. It is about unrestricted cell phone use, which studies have shown hinders learning.

a phone ban in NY caused an increase in overall student obedience and educational productivity, ... Of course, this study does directly contradict your educatoronline article.

No it doesn't. It says that no phones mean better learning. You are missing the forest for the trees.

Crowd dynamics

Lots of research has been done on this, and a small number of people can influence a large group. Look at "wave" studies for more info.

Calling minimum acceptable classroom behavior "picking yourself up by your bootstraps" is absurd. It's like saying that you can't expect people to not talk at the theater because that's just asking too much of people.

[–] abraxas@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Great! But you have no evidence to support your argument

I cited two pieces of fairly substantive evidence in reply to someone who cited a single article. If you don't think that is reasonable escalation of evidence, we can stop now.

Once again, we know cellphones are detrimental to learning. This is not a matter of schools failing to adapt to new technology

My cited references contradict that. More importantly, your article contradicts the "we know" part. Let me quote your reference: "Research from Sweden, however, suggests little effect of banning mobile phones in high school on student performance. "

My references made clear argument that this is indeed a case of schools failing to adapt to new technology. I even quoted a relevant quote to you.

No it doesn’t. It says that no phones mean better learning. You are missing the forest for the trees.

"My findings suggest an improvement in educational productivity due to the NYCDOE’s ban removal". I understand there's a double-negative in that reference, but the cited study's findings suggest that "yes phones mean better learning". You might disagree with it, but please reread it so that you do not misrepresent it.

Lots of research has been done on this, and a small number of people can influence a large group. Look at “wave” studies for more info.

Sure. Please demonstrate that your claims are correct. Until then, and especially because you seem to have failed to comprehend the involved references, I will wish you luck.

Calling minimum acceptable classroom behavior “picking yourself up by your bootstraps” is absurd. It’s like saying that you can’t expect people to not talk at the theater because that’s just asking too much of people.

I've lived an entire life of watching people blame the bulk of individuals for failures by authorities. I have become reasonably skeptical of any claims that "it's everyone but..." the decision-maker.

[–] ShranTheWaterPoloFan@startrek.website 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

One of the problems with arguing with people online is I tend to assume people are arguing in good faith.

After getting about 50 studies showing that cell phones are bad for learning, I switched to duckduckgo. Not until page 3 did I find your sources. You have waded through data that says you are wrong. I'm not interested in copying them for you.

[–] abraxas@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

One of the problems with arguing with people online is I tend to assume people are arguing in good faith.

One of the things that stop me from arguing with people online is when they accuse me of arguing in bad faith because I have facts they don't like. From such no-name sites as Harvard.

EDIT: For future reference (and 2 points):

Front page is a popularity contest, and does not bear any weight to the truth of a matter, or even expert consensus of that matter.
Front page can differ between people in search engines, and these results came from the front page on mine.

So in summary, the only reply that would not have been "bad faith" in your eyes would be to concede the argument. So you got it. Congrats, you were right about every opinion you've ever had in your life.