Question: Should educators be expected to learn about possible connections among cell phone use, social media, anxiety, and depression and, if so, where should this happen.
I am putting together issues I want to address in a revision of our textbook. I have been reading a lot about cell phone use and depression. I am trying to decide whether to include a section on this topic in the revision.
This is an interesting call on several levels. First, this topic is far from resolved. It appears that these variables are related, but just how is yet to be resolved. Related questions are difficult to investigate in a way that provides clear conclusions. There have been a few attempts to manipulate one possible causal variable by asking volunteers to abstain from cell phone use for a few months and see if there are changes in other variables, but this seems a weak experimental method as volunteers may not be representative and such studies are of a very short duration. Because the observation of relationships do not allow causal attribution, workarounds are sometimes used. Among the most persuasive are longitudinal studies in which the same research participants are followed over lengthy periods of time. It may be possible to determine which of two variables that are related changes first and which follows. These studies are very expensive and time-consuming and few on the topic of cell phone use and psychopathology exist. Do we know enough about causes and consequences to take action?
Second, the topics that educators can address may realistically be limited and the impact schools have would have to be indirect. The problem of cell phones and psychopathology does not involve cell phone behaviors during the school day. There is an obvious parallel in cyberbullying. Unlike bullying which may occur at school or school-sponsored activities, few students are cyberbullied during the same times. Still, the cyberbully, the victim, and observers know each other because of school. School also provide a convenient setting to address such problems. A similar observation might be made about many explanations for connections between addicted cell phone use and psychopathology. For example, the response or recognition adolescents desire from social media may not develop and be associated with depression. The desired respondents may be peers because of school associations. Again, school represents a convenient opportunity for intervention and for identifying those who may be at risk.
When does the tool become part of a decision for who pays attention? If the book is about educational technology in classrooms is this where the topic should be addressed. Is this so just because such courses examine uses of the tool (technology). Should it be assumed teachers would receive relevant information in developmental or adolescent psychology and ed tech books should stick to technology and learning instead? Will those who teach “technology for teachers” courses be prepared to discuss depression and anxiety in students? They often teach coding without being programmers perhaps they can discuss depression without being clinicians.