Teen data

I have multiple occasions to make use of descriptive data on adolescent online activity. These data can be difficult to obtain because the data describe typical activity and do not directly involve issues of great interest. The Pew Research Center does survey research and is a source I use frequently. This research center did their previous focus on adolescent social media use in 2014 and things change fast enough in this area that I was becoming hesitant to rely on this past study. PEW has just released a replication of that past survey.

There are few findings I would describe as startling but is nice to be able to cite precise numbers. Ninety-five percent of those in the 13-17 age ground report having access to a cellphone which is slightly higher than their reported access to a computer. Access varies significantly with family income level when it comes to a computer, but very little when it comes to a cell phone. Phone access is up from 73% reported in 2014. When adolescents claim to their parents that everyone has a phone, they are making an accurate claim.

PEW tried to assess just how heavily cell phones are being used by asking teens to classify their use into descriptive categories – almost constantly, several times a day, less often. The almost constantly description rose from 24% in 2014 to 45% om 2018.

The most common social media platforms teens use are YouTube, Instagram, and Snapchat. The focus on Facebook has fallen off since 2018.

 

Loading

The Cuban Interview

EdTechLive provides the audio of interviews with prominent individuals in the field. A recent addition is a session with Larry Cuban (author of Oversold and Underused – the PDF of which is also available from the site) and this conversation has generated some buzz in the blogs I follow. For those who have followed some of the core issues, most of the arguments in the interview are pretty much a rehash of themes from previous publications. Cuban’s 2001 book investigated a wide variety of issues concerning the use of technology in schools. Two of the major themes are apparent from the title – schools are pressued to purchase technology and the amount of time students spend using technology is very limited. The lack of reliable evidence that technology has a meaningful impact on achievement, limited opportunities for students to use the resources that are purchased, and the cost of the purchases are blended into a rather pessimistic picture. While pessimistic, this book and a journal article (much shorter – American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 813–834) should be read by those interested in this field. The interview provides a nice overview and may generate in some the motivation necessary to locate the book in the library or online.

Some of these same issues have been raised again by the recent Wall Street Journal article criticizing 1:1 laptop initiatives (accessible without cost from other services). This topic comes up in the interview.

Addressing and interpreting all of the concerns raised in the Cuban documents would require another book. Many of the observations (e.g., students spend little time with technology, teachers with adequate personal technology skills fail to avail their students of the same tool opportunities) have been made by others and the causes and related recommendations vary. The issue of “proof” in education is troublesome to all of us attempting to make good decisions about the field and also attempting to keep our personal interests from clouding the practices we advocate.

I would suggest that a careful reading of the research literature would bring into question several “costly” and time consuming educational practices (one of which Dr. Cuban seemed to mention in a positive way in this interview – general liberal arts education). One of may favorite examples (perhaps because of my personal academic training) is the science laboratory. The cost of laboratory experiences in introductory chemistry is extremely expensive (partly because the safety requirements that are imposed) and the demonstrated contribution to the understanding of the content taught in such courses would be hard to justify based on the literature I have read. I think some of the same factors that Cuban mentions in his book apply to the way we think about science laboratories. Instead of pressures exerted by parents to involve their children with computers and the promotions of companies interested in selling technology to schools, pressure comes from other directions. The assumptions regarding what constitutes sound scientific training promoted by organizations such as the NSF and the politics asssuming that general math and science preparation are somehow essential to international competitiveness prompt schools to spend money in certain ways. I am not against spending the money – my point is that finding costly academic ventures that lack a strong empirical basis is not that difficult.

Listen to the interview, parse the various arguments, and determine for yourself how you would interpret many of the observations that are provided.

Blogged with Flock

Loading