Ill Communication: Technology, distraction & student performance
[PUBLISHED ABSTRACT READ IN FULL at an LSE Centre for Economic Performance record carrying the same DOI; sciencedirect.com returned an empty body and the LSE discussion-paper PDF also returned an empty body. Earlier version confirmed as CEP Discussion Paper 1350, 2015. Author order confirmed at api.crossref.org, Beland sequence 'first'. FULL TEXT NOT READ] Beland, L.-P., & Murphy, R. (2016). 'Ill Communication: Technology, distraction & student performance.' Labour Economics, 41, 61-76. doi:10.1016/j.labeco.2016.04.004. THE STUDY CITED MOST OFTEN FOR PHONE BANS, AND IT HAS NO MENTAL-HEALTH OUTCOME IN IT AT ALL. Design: difference-in-differences exploiting variation in the timing of schools' own decisions to ban phones, merging a survey of school phone policies with administrative pupil data and conditioning on prior achievement. Sample as published, in the exact words of the record: 'schools in four English cities'. THE WIDELY REPEATED SCHOOL COUNT WAS NOT VERIFIED AT SOURCE AND IS NOT PRINTED HERE. RESULT, VERBATIM: 'Student performance in high stakes exams significantly increases post ban, by about 0.07 standard deviations on average.' And: 'These increases in performance are driven by the lowest-achieving students.' WHY IT IS IN THE BATCH: it measures TEST SCORES and contains no mental-health outcome of any kind, which supports the cleanest sentence available on this policy, that the evidence for school phone restriction is at its strongest on the outcome nobody is arguing about and at its weakest on the outcome everybody is arguing about.
[PUBLISHED ABSTRACT READ IN FULL at an LSE Centre for Economic Performance record carrying the same DOI; sciencedirect.com returned an empty body and the LSE discussion-paper PDF also returned an empty body. Earlier version confirmed as CEP Discussion Paper 1350, 2015. Author order confirmed at api.crossref.org, Beland sequence 'first'. FULL TEXT NOT READ] Beland, L.-P., & Murphy, R. (2016). 'Ill Communication: Technology, distraction & student performance.' Labour Economics, 41, 61-76. doi:10.1016/j.labeco.2016.04.004. THE STUDY CITED MOST OFTEN FOR PHONE BANS, AND IT HAS NO MENTAL-HEALTH OUTCOME IN IT AT ALL. Design: difference-in-differences exploiting variation in the timing of schools' own decisions to ban phones, merging a survey of school phone policies with administrative pupil data and conditioning on prior achievement. Sample as published, in the exact words of the record: 'schools in four English cities'. THE WIDELY REPEATED SCHOOL COUNT WAS NOT VERIFIED AT SOURCE AND IS NOT PRINTED HERE. RESULT, VERBATIM: 'Student performance in high stakes exams significantly increases post ban, by about 0.07 standard deviations on average.' And: 'These increases in performance are driven by the lowest-achieving students.' WHY IT IS IN THE BATCH: it measures TEST SCORES and contains no mental-health outcome of any kind, which supports the cleanest sentence available on this policy, that the evidence for school phone restriction is at its strongest on the outcome nobody is arguing about and at its weakest on the outcome everybody is arguing about.
Written from the pUBLISHED ABSTRACT READ IN FULL at an LSE Centre for Economic Performance record carrying the same DOI; sciencedirect.com returned an empty body and the LSE discussion-paper PDF also returned an empty body. Earlier version confirmed as CEP Discussion Paper 1350, 2015. Author order confirmed at api.crossref.org, Beland sequence 'first'. FULL TEXT NOT READ.
What our sources record
Recorded when this source was checked, figures included, with page references and quotation marks removed.
Beland, L.-P., & Murphy, R. (2016). Ill Communication: Technology, distraction & student performance. Labour Economics, 41, 61-76. doi:10.1016/j.labeco.2016.04.004