Should we be able to have phones in our classrooms?
Yes, we should.
Side Score: 9
|
 |
No, we shouldn't.
Side Score: 33
|
|
|
|
|
IF they are turned off! We've gotten on well for many years without a phone in every students pocket. A FIRE? Really? Calls like that going out will bring a convoy of parents with cars blocking the way of first responders and making the situation more dangerous! A parent can call the office, like they ALWAYS did, and get any word to their kids in an emergency. It always worked before we had cellphones. Side: Yes, we should.
Each teacher has a phone in their room, so if there was any kind of problem, the teacher can call the police or whoever. And you can use the teachers phone to call your parents or just go to the office and use the phone there. Phones cause distraction not only to the owner , or the person on the phone, but the people around that person Side: No, we shouldn't.
As a middle schooler on Principles List, I still think that we should have the ability to have a phone in the classrooms. I'm not saying that we should be able to get on and do whatever. The teachers have phones in their positions "in case if an emergency", but I've caught my teachers taking selfies, checking Facebook, and other things. Sometimes it helps students to know that they have their phones on them. And honestly, most schoolers don't really listen to the no phone rule. What would it hurt to lift the rule? Side: Yes, we should.
Yes and no. In high school and lower cell phones should not be allowed, but in college they should .The whole point of high school is to graduate, plus it is something you have to do uless you drop out. In college, however, you willingly want to go, so I believe it is your choice whether or not to pay attention. Plus you pay for your phone bill. Post college schools want to get us out of there and phones don’t help the process, but colleges get money either way so why would it matter to them if you fail their class because your on your phone all the time, they still get money. Side: Yes, we should.
|
@ xmath. Maybe I'm one of the very few, but I always felt that I absorbed and retained a greater degree of what I was being taught when I heard and saw the subject information at the same time. On the various, so called, management development courses I attended over the years I still remember almost everything the superb concrete technology lecturers covered. You're most likely more of a brainbox than I am and can discipline yourself to focus on your studies without the aid of a professional tutor, I can't, I need(ed) all the help | Can get. Side: No, we shouldn't.
@Antrim I cannot speak to the technology resources that were available to you at the time, as I know there is perhaps a generational gap between us, though today the lectures would all be available online (since other schools covered it and posted them)--which is essentially what I watch to keep up with the courses rather than going to my Professors particular lectures. That is, it would have been much, much more difficult to learn the same Math I learn now, 30 years ago--as none of those highly valuable sources would have been available. Instead, 30 years ago (if that were my time period), I would be struggling for hours upon hours and seek as much in-person help as possible, as I would have been restricted to (likely) a single textbook on the subject which is very difficult to decipher--it would have been Hellish, frankly. Learning is becoming much more accessible with the new resources now available. Note: The same resources are now available for essentially all subjects (not just Math). For example; Accounting, Economics, Business, Engineering, ect. The internet has really 'changed the game', so to speak Side: No, we shouldn't.
No, anything which detracts from students concentrating on the prepared curriculum should be banned. If the phones were turned off there would be many who would defy the rule and be unable to resist the temptation of texting their friends or playing games. Even one or two such a devices would be a disruptive influence on the entire class. It seems to me that too many people, especially young people can only communicate by cell phone and are losing their ability to interact with their fellow human being on a face to face basis. Side: No, we shouldn't.
@Antrim As a University Senior myself, I can tell you that is correct--devices certainly do distract students as they are often on Twitter, Facebook, playing games, ect. ect. However, I would also submit a larger question; What is the necessity of showing up for class when all of this can be learned online at this point? That is, I have discussed elsewhere recently, I am a Mathematics major, and the first couple of years in College I would diligently attend every class, participate frequently (when it was opened up to the students), ect. which demanded being on campus (out-and-about) nearly all-day 4-5 days a week. Then, after a couple years, it dawned on me; Essentially 100% of my learning occurs outside the classroom when studying with online free course material (provided by MITOpencourseware, YouTube tutors, ect.), the textbook, ect.--so why bother going to class at all? Now, I simply show up to turn in the homework assignments once a week (or as assigned) and take the tests. My grades are the same or even better (as it is much less stressful & time consuming--i.e. I can focus on studies more this way). Now, the University system does want to admit that the overwhelming majority of these subject areas can be learned independently with tests administered for very minimal fee(s) to prove/demonstrate proficiency in an area as this would cause their business model self-destruct. For instance, standard tests could be available to test a students knowledge in Single Variable Calculus for which people could independently study for, show up and take (much like the SAT or GRE). This would be plenty enough to demonstrate skill/knowledge in the area (if one has it), without the absurd cost and necessary extended timeline involved with taking the full-length courses. Also, the Research Professors have to waste their valuable time teaching us Undergrads basic information we should be able look up ourselves rather easily--and, through self-discipline & study, acquire the knowledge & abilites. Side: No, we shouldn't.
Depends what they're using it for. If they are using them for research specified by the teacher, then it's totally fine. But if they're just playing games on them, then it would just be a distraction. The phones should also be turned off and muted, so no calls interrupt the class. Side: No, we shouldn't.
1
point
I disagree the child will get to addicted... " 37 percent of teenagers, ages 13 to 17 have or have access to a smartphone, an increase from 37 percent in 2013." Also that 37% has increased 88% so it has increased 55% and the children would probably get to distracted.. Side: No, we shouldn't.
1
point
I disagree the child will get to addicted... " 37 percent of teenagers, ages 13 to 17 have or have access to a smartphone, an increase from 37 percent in 2013." Also that 37% has increased 88% so it has increased 55% and the children would probably get to distracted.. Side: No, we shouldn't.
1
point
I disagree the child will get to addicted... " 37 percent of teenagers, ages 13 to 17 have or have access to a smartphone, an increase from 37 percent in 2013." Also that 37% has increased 88% so it has increased 55% and the children would probably get to distracted.. Side: No, we shouldn't.
1
point
I disagree the child will get to addicted... " 37 percent of teenagers, ages 13 to 17 have or have access to a smartphone, an increase from 37 percent in 2013." Also that 37% has increased 88% so it has increased 55% and the children would probably get to distracted and the children will have a better focus on listening then on their phones Side: No, we shouldn't.
1
point
I disagree the child will get to addicted... " 37 percent of teenagers, ages 13 to 17 have or have access to a smartphone, an increase from 37 percent in 2013." Also that 37% has increased 88% so it has increased 55% and the children would probably get to distracted and the children will have a better focus on listening then on their phones Side: No, we shouldn't.
1
point
I disagree the child will get to addicted... " 37 percent of teenagers, ages 13 to 17 have or have access to a smartphone, an increase from 37 percent in 2013." Also that 37% has increased 88% so it has increased 55% and the children would probably get to distracted and the children will have a better focus on listening then on their phones Side: No, we shouldn't.
|
