School restrictive smartphone policies may save a small amount of money

 School restrictive smartphone policies may save a small amount of money for schools, primarily by reducing the amount of time staff spend on managing phone-related behaviours, but they make little difference to pupils’ quality of life or mental wellbeing, finds a health economic analysis, published in the online journal BMJ Mental Health.

 

By the age of 12, most children own a phone and use social media, with teens reportedly spending between 4 and 6 hours a day on their phones and 2–4 hours a day on social media, note the researchers. Spending a lot of time on smartphones and social media tends to be associated with poorer mental health, they add.

 

In the UK, an estimated 1 in 5 children between the ages of 11 and 16 probably has a mental health issue—mostly anxiety and depression—they point out.

 

Many countries have introduced restrictive smartphone policies for secondary schools, with the aim of improving pupils’ mental wellbeing and academic performance. But it’s not entirely clear how successful these policies have been, or whether they represent value for money, explain the researchers.

 

To find out, they carried out a cost–utility analysis as part of an observational study on school smartphone policies in England (SMART Schools), comparing schools with restrictive and permissive policies.

 

In schools with restrictive policies, phones weren’t allowed to be used during the school day for recreational purposes and had to be turned off and inside bags, or stored in lockers, or kept in a pouch, or handed into the school reception, or not allowed onto the premises.

 

In permissive schools, phones were allowed to be used at any time, or at certain times, such as during breaks or lunch, and/or in certain zones—-outside, for example.

 

Complete survey data were collected from 815 pupils, aged 12 to 15 (years 8-10) from 20 schools (13 restrictive; 7 permissive), 36 teachers, and 20 senior members of staff responsible for their school’s smartphone policy completed online questionnaires between November 2022 and November 2023. 

 

Outcomes were measured in quality adjusted life years (QALYs), a standard measure where one QALY equals one year of life lived in perfect health, and in MWALYs—the equivalent measure for good mental health and wellbeing.

 

The analysis revealed that the differences in pupils’ quality of life and mental wellbeing between restrictive and permissive schools were minimal.

 

But school staff spent a significant amount of time each week administering smartphone policies and managing phone-related behaviours, irrespective of policy type—equivalent to 3.1 full timers in restrictive schools and 3.3 full timers in permissive schools.

 

The researchers calculated that the cost per pupil for each school year (39 weeks) in restrictive schools was £94 less than in permissive schools, and would only be cost effective at a threshold of £20,000 and £30,000 per QALY---the threshold generally accepted as representing value for money.

 

This is an observational study, and as such, no firm conclusions can be drawn about cause and effect. And the researchers acknowledge that they had no information on costs and outcomes before and after the implementation of a more restrictive phone policy.

 

Nevertheless, they highlight: “This study provides further evidence that there are unlikely to be differences in pupils’ mental health and wellbeing outcomes in adolescents attending schools with a restrictive or permissive smartphone policy.” 

 

They add: “Restrictive phone policies could offer small economic benefits to schools by reducing the amount of time school staff spend managing pupil phone-related behaviours.”

 

They conclude: “Overall, the findings highlight the need for development of current school phone policy and practices to reduce school staff time spent managing adolescent phone use, potentially freeing up resources for more beneficial educational and wellbeing activities.”

 

And they point out: “On smartphones, we currently lack an evidence-based best practice approach to addressing phone and social media use by adolescents. Therefore, all new approaches need to be accompanied by robust evaluation.”

 

---

Journal

BMJ Mental Health

DOI

10.1136/bmjment-2025-301892 

Non-formal education settings can boost students’ motivation to engage with chemistry.

 Apart from a few exceptional cases, this discipline is often perceived as difficult, abstract and removed from real life. This affects students’ motivation and choices, discouraging them from pursuing academic and professional careers in this important and, in fact, fascinating field.

In a new article published in JCOM, a team of Brazilian researchers — Ariane Carolina da Rocha, Ana Carolina Steola and Ana Cláudia Kasseboehmer, all from the Instituto de Química de São Carlos (Universidade de São Paulo) — worked with numerous public school classes of various types to show how non-formal education methods, such as those used in science museums, can support traditional educational pathways and improve students’ motivation.

Chemophobia

There is a specific term to describe the phenomenon: chemophobia. “It is the negative perception of chemistry and is often associated with the idea that it is dangerous, too difficult or disconnected from everyday life. This perception generally stems from a lack of information and from the way chemistry is taught,” explains da Rocha. “Chemistry is often perceived as difficult because it involves abstract concepts, symbols and mathematical representations. Many students – and even other people – do not see a clear link between chemistry and their daily lives.”

“Traditional teaching methods can be very content‑focused and not very interactive, which reduces student engagement,” da Rocha continues. For this reason, the non‑formal education methods used in science museums and science centres can play an important role in supporting school curricula.

The theoretical framework: Self‑Determination Theory

Da Rocha and her colleagues based their research on the theoretical framework of Self‑Determination Theory (SDT), formulated by Edward Deci and Richard Ryan in 1985. SDT is a psychological theory proposing that motivation is strongly linked to three basic needs: autonomy, competence and relatedness. “We chose this theoretical framework because it helps us understand not only what students learn, but also how they feel during learning, especially in non‑formal education contexts,” says da Rocha.

The research took place with high‑school students from six public schools in peripheral neighbourhoods of São Carlos, Brazil. The choice of these schools aimed to expand students’ access to non‑formal education experiences and to science communication initiatives linked to the university.

An interactive exhibition on advanced oxidation processes

An interactive exhibition explaining advanced oxidation processes (AOP), visited by more than 250 students, was used in the study. The exhibition, based on a university research project, illustrated various processes for degrading organic compounds such as dyes, pharmaceuticals and personal care products. Among these, AOP stood out, capable of transforming organic compounds into less toxic substances using techniques considered environmentally friendly. In this context it was possible to explore and discuss, through science communication activities, concepts such as electrochemistry, oxidation for pollutant degradation and radical reactions. The activity involved interaction with a physical model and with the exhibition. For the qualitative phase, students who had shown the highest and lowest levels of participation were selected for interviews, allowing different forms of engagement, interest and participation to be analysed.

Reducing chemophobia through non‑formal education

The results showed that students who took part in the non‑formal education activities demonstrated greater interest and involvement in chemistry: interacting with the subject increased their sense of competence and confidence, leading to a more positive and closer perception of the discipline.

“This indicates that chemophobia does not depend solely on the content itself,” concludes da Rocha, “but also on teaching approaches and learning environments.” When students experience meaningful, interactive and welcoming contexts, negative perceptions of chemistry tend to diminish.

The paper “Exploring Chemistry: the impact of an interactive model on student motivation in non-formal education spaces” is part of JCOM’s new special issue “Unexpected places.”

---

Journal

Journal of Science Communication

DOI

10.22323/167120260102161441 

Low to average social media use ages 11 and 14 did not strongly predict later mental ill health

 There is little evidence that the amount of time young people spend on social media is linked to later mental health issues, according to a new study.

Research following more than 3000 young people found that low to average social media use at ages 11 and 14 did not strongly predict mental ill health three years later, including depression and anxiety, self-harm and suicide attempts.

The study provides valuable insights into the relationship between social media use and mental health outcomes, but experts say further research is needed to address the complexity of the issue.

Exploring the relationship between technology and young people’s wellbeing is complex and it must take into account other factors which influence both social media use and mental health.

Researchers from the University of Edinburgh used a technique to address some of these complexities, adjusting data to consider factors such as earlier childhood mental health and family and peer relationships.

Experts used survey data from the UK Millennium Cohort Study, which follows young people born between 2000 and 2002 across the UK, to analyse their self-reported social media use at ages 11 and 14.

Parents and the young people themselves provided information on emotional issues and self-harm at ages 14 and 17. Suicide attempt data from participants was collected at age 17.

The findings showed no significant associations between using messaging or visiting social networking websites on most days at age 11 and emotional health issues, such as depression and anxiety or self-harm, at age 14.

Similarly, no significant links were found between using social media for two or more hours a day at age 14 and mental health problems and self-harm at age 17. 

However, when looking at heavy social media use – defined in the study as two or more hours a day – the study found that spending more time on social media at age 14 was linked to a small but notable increase – about three per cent – of suicide attempts by age 17.

Even small increases matter, as suicide attempts are always serious, the researchers say.

The findings add to previous studies which suggested there is no substantial link between the length of time and frequency of social media use and adolescent mental health, researchers say.

The researchers caution that the study only looked at length of time and frequency of social media use. Other factors such as how the platforms are used, could still play a part.

The team intends to build upon the findings as they investigate which of these additional factors might contribute to mental health problems among teenagers.

Dr Xinxin Zhu, of the University of Edinburgh’s School of Philosophy, Psychology and Languages Sciences, and co-lead of the study, said: “There is considerable debate surrounding the effects of social media use and adolescents' mental health.

“One key part of the debate is whether any links we see might actually be caused by other things that affect both social media use and mental health. To address this, we compared the actual data with what we think would have happened if the young people hadn’t spent more time on social media.”

Professor Aja Murray, of the University of Edinburgh’s School of Philosophy, Psychology and Language Sciences, and co-lead of the study, said: “Measuring time spent or frequency on social media alone is too simplistic to capture the complexity of its impact on mental health in young people. Future research would benefit from looking at social media use in more detail – not just how often teenagers use it, but also which platforms they use, how they interact on them and whether their behaviour shows signs of being unhealthy or addictive.”

The study was conducted with the input of a young persons' advisory group, who informed the study research questions, helped interpret findings, and identified study limitations.

The study is published in the journal SSM – Mental Health (link to study: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666560325001951).

Imagery styles shape pathways into STEM and may be why gender gaps persist

 New research is proving persistent gender gaps in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) careers can’t be explained by academic ability alone. A recent Baycrest study suggests that success in STEM careers is shaped by different cognitive strengths and that these strengths relate differently to career outcomes for women and men.

The findings offer new insight into why women remain underrepresented in computational STEM fields, such as computer science and engineering, despite comparable academic ability.

The researchers examined both spatial imagery, as in navigation and mental rotation, and object imagery, as in memory for colours and features, as predictors of who is likely to select – and succeed in – computational STEM disciplines. As in prior research, they found that higher spatial imagery was positively associated with success in STEM careers across genders. Object imagery, however, was negatively related to participation and success in computational STEM fields, but only among men.

While previous research has explored who is more likely to pursue STEM careers, this study is among the first to examine how different kinds of mental imagery abilities relate to STEM occupational outcomes.

“Spatial thinking has long been viewed as a key cognitive driver of STEM success,” says Dr. Moriah Sokolowski, Adjunct Scientist at Baycrest’s Rotman Research Institute and lead author of the study, titled “Visual imagery and STEM occupational attainment: Gender matters,” published recently in Personality and Individual Differences. “Our results support its importance, but also show that succeeding in computational STEM disciplines relies on abstract, nonvisual reasoning. Importantly, women with these cognitive profiles appear less likely than men to pursue computational STEM careers.”

The researchers examined how different types of visual imagery relate to STEM and computational skills using a large online sample of 4,545 participants. They analyzed associations between spatial imagery, object imagery and STEM occupations, then tested whether the findings held in additional samples.

These included 1,891 individuals with aphantasia, a condition characterized by very low object imagery abilities, and 186 university undergraduate students. In these groups, the researchers examined both occupational outcomes and academic performance, including course grades, to replicate and generalize the findings.

Main study findings:

• The ability to mentally manipulate spatial information was positively associated with STEM occupations and academic outcomes for both men and women.
• Men who reported less vivid mental imagery for objects were more likely to work in computational STEM roles and earn higher grades in computational coursework, a pattern not observed in women.
• Women with comparable cognitive profiles were less likely to enter computational STEM fields, suggesting the influence of social, cultural or structural barriers.

The findings suggest that current approaches to identifying and supporting STEM talent may be too narrow and may inadvertently disadvantage women. Focusing primarily on spatial skills may overlook other cognitive strengths, such as nonspatial abstract reasoning, that are highly relevant to computational STEM.

While lower object imagery predicted success for men in computational STEM, this relationship was not observed in women, pointing to the possible influence of sociocultural or affective factors, such as stereotype threat or math anxiety, even when cognitive abilities are comparable.

Recognizing diverse cognitive profiles as strengths, rather than deficits, could help educators and employers develop more inclusive strategies to support a broader range of students and workers in STEM fields.

Exploring why some children struggle to learn math

 

On a simple math task — indicating which of two amounts is greater — kids with math learning disability get the right answer as often as their good-at-math peers, but behind the scenes, their brains are working differently, a new Stanford Medicine study has found. The differences shed light on what causes their math struggles.

The findings, which will be published online Feb. 9 in the Journal of Neuroscience, show that children with a math learning disability are less likely to solve problems at the right speed, or to slow down after they make mistakes, particularly while working with number symbols. Their brain scans show different levels of activity in centers involved in executive function — which is similar to air traffic control, enabling focused attention — and checking for errors.

The discoveries point toward new ways to help kids with math learning disability, the researchers said.

“Our findings suggest that interventions should target not only basic number sense, but also metacognitive processes, like performance monitoring — how do you adjust when you notice an error?” said senior author Vinod Menon, PhD, the Rachael L. and Walter F. Nichols, MD, Professor and a professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences. “We need to provide these children with feedback and training to build those cognitive skills.”

While having their brains scanned via functional magnetic resonance imaging, kids in the study answered problems that were posed in two ways: They compared different-sized groups of dots, and compared Arabic numerals.

“What we found was that children with math learning disability show specific difficulties with symbolic numbers, and particularly with updating their strategy as they work with number symbols,” said co-lead author Hyesang Chang, PhD, a former research scientist at Stanford Medicine. In other words, kids with math learning disability are less likely to adjust after making mistakes, she said.

Research scientists Percy Mistry, PhD, and Yuan Zhang, PhD, share lead authorship of the paper with Chang.

Early help keeps math learners on track

The study focused on children in second and third grades. Of the 87 children whose data was analyzed, 34 had math learning disability, meaning they scored at or below the 25th percentile on a standard test of math fluency; the other 53 children had higher scores indicating typical math-learning ability. 

Math learning disability can be defined in different ways. The criteria used in this study — placing in the bottom quarter of scores on a standard test — is fairly broad, which was intentional, Menon said, as it helps make the findings applicable to many children who struggle with math. Some people, about 3% to 7% of the population, have a more strictly defined form of math learning disability called dyscalculia that includes difficulties understanding and comparing quantities, learning to count, understanding number symbols and learning math-based skills such as telling time.

Identifying students with math learning disabilities early and offering prompt, effective help is important for keeping their education on track, Menon said.

“If you’re not doing well, you lose interest and motivation, and you may get more anxious during problem solving because you feel you’re not good at it,” he said. “It’s a cascading set of problems; it becomes a bottleneck to further learning.”

For the study, the researchers chose the simple task of comparing two quantities because they wanted to assess differences in the children’s brain processes as they worked with numbers, independent of differences in their math performance. While in the MRI scanner, children saw pairs of quantities and pressed a button to indicate which of each pair was larger. Some problems used dots to show quantities; others used Arabic numerals. Problems were classified as easy (those with a large gap between the numbers, such as 7 versus 2) or hard (separated by only one number, such as 6 versus 7).

Scans show differences

Although children with and without math learning disability had similar rates of correct answers, data from their responses and brain scans revealed differences between the two groups.

The researchers developed a computational model to assess factors such as how cautious participants were about deciding which number was larger, on both easy and hard problems, and how readily participants detected their own mistakes and slowed down or changed strategies for the next problem after making an error. (Participants were not told if they had made a mistake.)

On problems with numeric symbols, children with typical math abilities slowed down more for harder comparisons than easy ones, while children with math learning disability didn’t modify their strategy as much. Those with math learning disability were also less likely to slow down or change their behavior after they made an error than children with typical math ability.

However, for problems presented as groups of dots, children with math learning disability were actually more cautious after making an error.

“Many of these kids — unless their disability is severe — have normal representation of non-symbolic quantities, so they can tell five from 10 dots quite easily, but when you ask them to reason with and manipulate number symbols, they become deficient,” Menon said.

Brain scans revealed patterns that lined up with these behaviors. While doing problems with number symbols, children with math learning disability had less neural activity in the middle frontal gyrus, which has roles in executive function and in sustaining and directing attention, and in the anterior cingulate cortex, which detects errors and helps with decision making and impulse control.

“Seeing weaker function in kids with math learning disability in those brain regions — which are known to be involved in executive function and error monitoring — suggests that they may be using those brain resources less than is necessary to solve these problems efficiently,” Chang said.

The findings could help educators craft ways to help struggling students become better at math as well as other types of problem-solving.

“One of our surprising findings is that even in the absence of an overt difference in the kids’ behavior, we could pick up strong signals about what their brains are doing behind the scenes,” Menon said. “It gives us insight that how we reason — how we think about problems and adjust our problem-solving behavior — is just as important as having a core domain of knowledge.”

Hyesang Chang and colleagues, from Stanford University, explored why some children struggle to learn math compared to their peers in a new JNeurosci paper.  

Children selected which numbers were bigger than others across different trials, with quantities represented as numerical symbols or as clusters of dots. The researchers created a model based on how much performance varied over time. The model suggested that children with difficulties in learning math struggled to update their thinking approach as they continued to get different types of trials wrong. Brain imaging helped explain why this might be the case, pointing to weaker activity in areas linked to monitoring and adjusting behavior. The researchers further discovered that weaker activity in these brain areas could predict whether a child had typical or atypical math abilities. 

This work suggests that kids struggling to learn math may have difficulty not only with processing numbers, but also with updating their thought processes as they work with numbers. Speaking on implications, says Chang, “These impairments may not necessarily be specific to numerical skills, and could apply to broader cognitive abilities that involve monitoring task performance and adapting behavior as children learn.” The researchers hope to apply the model they developed on broader groups of children with other types of learning disabilities. 

Full-Service Community Schools grantee and partner school characteristics

 

Today, the Institute of Education Sciences released Expanding the Reach of the Full-Service Community Schools Program. The Full-Service Community Schools (FSCS) program awards five-year grants to states, districts, or other organizations to help partner schools implement community schools. Community schools are intended to serve as hubs that coordinate and integrate a wide range of services and supports that meet the unique needs of students and communities. This study snapshot examines whether the FSCS grant program helped expand the community school approach to schools that are consistent with program priorities: schools that are high poverty, located in rural areas, and new to or not yet fully implementing their community school approach. Data for this study snapshot come from the Common Core of Data and surveys of fiscal year 2023 FSCS grantees and their partner schools. Grant awards were made in November 2023, and surveys were administered from May through October 2024. Findings include: FSCS grantees almost exclusively served high-poverty schools and almost half of schools were rural. Grantees predominantly served partner schools that were not yet fully implementing the community school approach and school districts that were new to the grant program. To access the study snapshot, please visit: https://ies.ed.gov/use-work/resource-library/report/snapshot/expanding-reach-full-service-community-schools-program.

School indoor vaping restrictions don't reduce vaping

 With the goal of curbing electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) use among youths, 40 states and the District of Columbia have adopted restrictions on nicotine vaping at elementary and secondary (K-12) schools. 

This study is the first to estimate the effect of K-12 school vaping restrictions (SVRs) on ENDS use among youth. 

Using data from several nationally representative data sources and a generalized difference-in-differences approach, the authors find little evidence that school indoor vaping restrictions reduce youth ENDS use. With 95% confidence, they rule out SVR-induced youth vaping declines of more than 3.5%. 

Descriptive evidence suggests that students may respond to SVRs by substituting to smaller vaping devices and vaping in school locations that are less easily detectable by school employees (e.g., bathrooms and locker rooms). 

In contrast, comprehensive vaping restrictions covering school campuses, workplaces, restaurants, and drinking establishments are associated with a 1.5-2.6 percentage-point reduction in teen nicotine vaping. This result is concentrated on the initiation margin of use and is consistent with the hypothesis that broader place-based restrictions increase the costs of youth ENDS use.