# data[].attributes.headline
How Using Social Media Affects Teenagers

# data[].attributes.subject
How Using Social Media Affects Teenagers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Many parents worry about how exposure to technology might affect toddlers developmentally. We know our preschoolers are picking up new social and cognitive skills at a stunning pace, and we don't want hours spent glued to an iPad to impede that. But adolescence is an equally important period of rapid development, and too few of us are paying attention to how our teenagers' use of technology - much more intense and intimate than a 3-year-old playing with dad's iPhone - is affecting them. In fact, experts worry that the social media and text messages that have become so integral to teenage life are promoting anxiety and lowering self-esteem.

Young people report that there might be good reason to worry. A survey conducted by the Royal Society for Public Health asked 14-24-year-olds in the UK how social media platforms impacted their health and well-being. The survey results found that Snapchat, Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram all led to increased feelings of depression, anxiety, poor body image, and loneliness.

Indirect communication

Teens are masters at keeping themselves occupied in the hours after school until way past bedtime. When they're not doing their homework (and when they are) they're online and on their phones, texting, sharing, trolling, scrolling, you name it. Of course before everyone had an Instagram account teens kept themselves busy, too, but they were more likely to do their chatting on the phone, or in person when hanging out at the mall. It may have looked like a lot of aimless hanging around, but what they were doing was experimenting, trying out skills, and succeeding and failing in tons of tiny real-time interactions that kids today are missing out on. For one thing, modern teens are learning to do most of their communication while looking at a screen, not another person.

"As a species we are very highly attuned to reading social cues," says Catherine Steiner-Adair, EdD, a clinical psychologist and author of The Big Disconnect. "There's no question kids are missing out on very critical social skills. In a way, texting and online communicating puts everybody in a context where body language, facial expression, and even the smallest kinds of vocal reactions are rendered invisible."

Lowering the risks

Certainly speaking indirectly creates a barrier to clear communication, but that's not all. Learning how to make friends is a major part of growing up, and friendship requires a certain amount of risk-taking. This is true for making a new friend, but it's also true for maintaining friendships. When there are problems that need to be faced - big ones or small ones - it takes courage to be honest about your feelings and then hear what the other person has to say. Learning to effectively cross these bridges is part of what makes friendship fun and exciting, and also scary. "Part of healthy self-esteem is knowing how to say what you think and feel even when you're in disagreement with other people or it feels emotionally risky," notes Dr. Steiner-Adair.

But when friendship is conducted online and through texts, kids are doing this in a context stripped of many of the most personal - and sometimes intimidating - aspects of communication. It's easier to keep your guard up when you're texting, so less is at stake. You aren't hearing or seeing the effect that your words are having on the other person. Because the conversation isn't happening in real time, each party can take more time to consider a response. No wonder kids say calling someone on the phone is "too intense"- it requires more direct communication, and if you aren't used to that it may well feel scary.

If kids aren't getting enough practice relating to people and getting their needs met in person and in real time, many of them will grow up to be adults who are anxious about our species' primary means of communication - talking. And of course social negotiations only get riskier as people get older and begin navigating romantic relationships and employment.

Cyberbullying and the imposter syndrome

The other big danger that comes from kids communicating more indirectly is that it has gotten easier to be cruel. "Kids text all sorts of things that you would never in a million years contemplate saying to anyone's face," says Donna Wick, EdD, a clinical and developmental psychologist. She notes that this seems to be especially true of girls, who typically don't like to disagree with each other in "real life."

"You hope to teach them that they can disagree without jeopardizing the relationship, but what social media is teaching them to do is disagree in ways that are more extreme and do jeopardize the relationship. It's exactly what you don't want to have happen," she says.

Dr. Steiner-Adair agrees that girls are particularly at risk. "Girls are socialized more to compare themselves to other people, girls in particular, to develop their identities, so it makes them more vulnerable to the downside of all this." She warns that a lack of solid self-esteem is often to blame. "We forget that relational aggression comes from insecurity and feeling awful about yourself, and wanting to put other people down so you feel better."

Peer acceptance is a big thing for adolescents, and many of them care about their image as much as a politician running for office, and to them it can feel as serious. Add to that the fact that kids today are getting actual polling data on how much people like them or their appearance via things like "likes." It's enough to turn anyone's head. Who wouldn't want to make themselves look cooler if they could? So kids can spend hours pruning their online identities, trying to project an idealized image. Teenage girls sort through hundreds of photos, agonizing over which ones to post online. Boys compete for attention by trying to out-gross one other, pushing the envelope as much as they can in the already disinhibited atmosphere online. Kids gang up on each other.

Adolescents have always been doing this, but with the advent of social media they are faced with more opportunities - and more traps - than ever before. When kids scroll through their feeds and see how great everyone seems, it only adds to the pressure. We're used to worrying about the impractical ideals that photoshopped magazine models give to our kids, but what happens with the kid next door is photoshopped, too? Even more confusing, what about when your own profile doesn't really represent the person that you feel like you are on the inside?

"Adolescence and the early twenties in particular are the years in which you are acutely aware of the contrasts between who you appear to be and who you think you are," says Dr. Wick. "It's similar to the 'imposter syndrome' in psychology. As you get older and acquire more mastery, you begin to realize that you actually are good at some things, and then you feel that gap hopefully narrow. But imagine having your deepest darkest fear be that you aren't as good as you look, and then imagine needing to look that good all the time! It's exhausting."

As Dr. Steiner-Adair explains, "Self-esteem comes from consolidating who you are." The more identities you have, and the more time you spend pretending to be someone you aren't, the harder it's going to be to feel good about yourself.

Stalking (and being ignored)

Another big change that has come with new technology and especially smart phones is that we are never really alone. Kids update their status, share what they're watching, listening to, and reading, and have apps that let their friends know their specific location on a map at all times. Even if a person isn't trying to keep his friends updated, he's still never out of reach of a text message. The result is that kids feel hyperconnected with each other. The conversation never needs to stop, and it feels like there's always something new happening.

"Whatever we think of the 'relationships' maintained and in some cases initiated on social media, kids never get a break from them," notes Dr. Wick. "And that, in and of itself, can produce anxiety. Everyone needs a respite from the demands of intimacy and connection; time alone to regroup, replenish and just chill out. When you don't have that, it's easy to become emotionally depleted, fertile ground for anxiety to breed."

It's also surprisingly easy to feel lonely in the middle of all that hyperconnection. For one thing, kids now know with depressing certainty when they're being ignored. We all have phones and we all respond to things pretty quickly, so when you're waiting for a response that doesn't come, the silence can be deafening. The silent treatment might be a strategic insult or just the unfortunate side effect of an online adolescent relationship that starts out intensely but then fades away.

"In the old days when a boy was going to break up with you, he had to have a conversation with you. Or at least he had to call," says Dr. Wick. "These days he might just disappear from your screen, and you never get to have the 'What did I do?' conversation." Kids are often left imagining the worst about themselves.

But even when the conversation doesn't end, being in a constant state of waiting can still provoke anxiety. We can feel ourselves being put on the back burner, we put others back there, and our very human need to communicate is effectively delegated there, too.

What should parents do?

Both experts interviewed for this article agreed that the best thing parents can do to minimize the risks associated with technology is to curtail their own consumption first. It's up to parents to set a good example of what healthy device usage looks like. Most of us check our phones or our email too much, out of either real interest or nervous habit. Kids should be used to seeing our faces, not our heads bent over a screen. Establish technology-free zones in the house and technology-free hours when no one uses the phone, including mom and dad. "Don't walk in the door after work in the middle of a conversation," Dr. Steiner-Adair advises. "Don't walk in the door after work, say 'hi' quickly, and then 'just check your email.' In the morning, get up a half hour earlier than your kids and check your email then. Give them your full attention until they're out the door. And neither of you should be using phones in the car to or from school because that's an important time to talk."

Not only does limiting the amount of time you spend plugged in to computers provide a healthy counterpoint to the tech-obsessed world, it also strengthens the parent-child bond and makes kids feel more secure. Kids need to know that you are available to help them with their problems, talk about their day, or give them a reality check.

"It is the mini-moments of disconnection, when parents are too focused on their own devices and screens, that dilute the parent-child relationship," Dr. Steiner-Adair warns. And when kids start turning to the internet for help or to process whatever happened during the day, you might not like what happens. "Tech can give your children more information that you can, and it doesn't have your values," notes Dr. Steiner-Adair. "It won't be sensitive to your child's personality, and it won't answer his question in a developmentally appropriate way."

In addition Dr. Wick advises delaying the age of first use as much as possible. "I use the same advice here that I use when talking about kids and alcohol - try to get as far as you can without anything at all." If your child is on a social media platform, Dr. Wick says that you should friend them and monitor their page. But she advises against going through text messages unless there is cause for concern. "If you have a reason to be worried then okay, but it better be a good reason. I see parents who are just plain old spying on their kids. Parents should begin by trusting their children. To not even give your kid the benefit of the doubt is incredibly damaging to the relationship. You have to feel like your parents think you're a good kid."

Offline, the gold standard advice for helping kids build healthy self-esteem is to get them involved in something that they're interested in. It could be sports or music or taking apart computers or volunteering - anything that sparks an interest and gives them confidence. When kids learn to feel good about what they can do instead of how they look and what they own, they're happier and better prepared for success in real life. That most of these activities also involve spending time interacting with peers face-to-face is just the icing on the cake.

Frequently Asked Questions

How does social media affect behavior negatively?

How does social media affect social skills?

How does social media affect teenagers' mental health?

Is social media harmful?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Using Social Media Affects Teenagers - Child Mind Institute

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
How does social media affect teens? Experts say kids are growing up with more anxiety and less self-esteem due to social media. Read advice for parents from specialists in our article.

# data[].attributes.headline
How Social Media Affects Your Teen's Mental Health: A Parent's Guide

# data[].attributes.subject
How Social Media Affects Your Teen's Mental Health: A Parent's Guide

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Mental health issues among teens have been rising for more than a decade, and some experts wonder how much social media use is to blame. If you're a parent questioning if-and how-you should monitor the way your teenager uses social media, you're not alone.

In the spring of 2023, United States Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, MD, MBA, released an advisory called Social Media and Youth Mental Health, in which he says there is growing evidence that social media is causing harm to young people's mental health. Soon after, the American Psychological Association (APA) issued its own health advisory. A year later, in June 2024, Dr. Murthy called for a surgeon general's warning label on social media platforms, which would require an act of Congress to implement.

The issue is complicated, however. While there are indicators that it can have a profound risk of harm to teens (more on that below), social media use aimed at making healthy connections with others may actually be beneficial to some people. Dr. Murthy's report indicates that more research is needed to fully understand the impact of social media. For parents, this means there are no easy answers.

"The issues we face now with social media are similar to those we faced when television came out," says Linda Mayes, MD, chair of the Yale Child Study Center (YCSC). She explains that, as with TV watching, there are pros and cons to social media for young people. "So, how do we help parents filter out the parts that may be detrimental?"

Below, Dr. Mayes and YCSC's Yann Poncin, MD, a child psychiatrist, offer advice for parents trying to help their teenagers use social media in a positive way.

But first, some background.

Social media use and teens: Background, benefits, and harms

As a parent, you might ask yourself, "What, specifically, about social media use can have a negative impact on my teen?"

Dr. Murthy's advisory was based on what it describes as a "substantial review of the available evidence." It raises a variety of concerns, including the amount of time adolescents spend on platforms, the type of content they consume (or are exposed to), and the degree to which their online interactions disrupt activities essential for health, such as sleep and exercise. It points out that social media can also affect young users in different ways, depending on their strengths and vulnerabilities as individuals, as well as their cultural, historical, and socio-economic backgrounds.

The report stresses that the brain is going through a highly sensitive period between the ages of 10 and 19, when identities and feelings of self-worth are forming. Frequent social media use may be associated with distinct changes in the developing brain, potentially affecting such functions as emotional learning and behavior, impulse control, and emotional regulation.

What are the potential benefits of social media use by teens?

Some teenagers experience a benefit when they use social media to foster positive connections with others who share common interests or identities (if they are seeking a connection with others who are, say, members of a particular racial identity), creating a space for self-expression. Relationships formed in communities like these can create opportunities for positive interactions with more diverse peer groups than are available to them offline, according to Dr. Murthy's report.

The advisory points to a 2022 survey of American teenagers and their parents by the Pew Research Center, which showed that a majority of respondents felt that social media helps teenagers feel more accepted (58%), like they have people who can support them through tough times (67%), that they have a place to show their creative side (71%), and that they are more connected to what's going on in their friends' lives (80%).

"Posting to let your friends know how you've been spending your time can be a positive or healthy way to connect and hear about each other's day," says Dr. Poncin. "It's no different than 30 years ago when adolescents would be on the phone for three hours connecting with their friends-only now you're online with your friends, saying, 'Meet you after school,' or 'Did you hear about this?'"

What are the potential harms of social media use by teens?

Over the last decade, increasing evidence has identified the potential negative impact of social media on adolescents. According to a research study of American teens ages 12-15, those who used social media over three hours each day faced twice the risk of having negative mental health outcomes, including depression and anxiety symptoms.

The advisory states that other studies "point to a higher relative concern of harm in adolescent girls and those already experiencing poor mental health, as well as for particular health outcomes, such as cyberbullying-related depression, body image and disordered eating behaviors, and poor sleep quality linked to social media use."

"What's more, the social media algorithms are built to promote whatever you seem interested in," says Dr. Mayes. "If a teen searches for any kind of mental health condition, such as depression or suicide, it's going to feed them information about those things, so soon they may begin to think that everyone around them is depressed or thinking about suicide, which is not necessarily good for mental health."

When does the kind of content teens see become an issue?

Teens can easily access extreme, inappropriate, and harmful content. In certain cases, deaths have been linked to suicide- and self-harm-related content, such as "cutting," partial asphyxiation, and risk-taking challenges on social media platforms, according to Dr. Murthy's report. Studies also found that discussing or showing this content can normalize these behaviors.

Eating disorders are yet another concern. A review of 50 studies across 17 countries between 2016 and 2021 published in PLOS Global Public Health suggested that relentless online exposure to largely unattainable physical ideals may trigger a distorted sense of self and eating disorders. This is considered to be a particular problem among girls.

In addition, people who target adolescents-for instance, adults seeking to sexually exploit teens or financially extort them through the threat or actual distribution of intimate images-may use social media platforms for these types of predatory behaviors, according to the Surgeon General's advisory.

Why is excessive use of social media a problem?

The excessive use of social media can harm teens by disrupting important healthy behaviors. Some researchers think that exposure to social media can overstimulate the brain's reward center and, when the stimulation becomes excessive, can trigger pathways comparable to addiction.

Excessive use has also been linked to sleep problems, attention problems, and feelings of exclusion in adolescents. And sleep is essential for the healthy development of teens, according to Dr. Murthy's advisory.

Social media use in teens: A guide for parents

After reading the background, as a parent, you might ask yourself, "Sure, but do kids really use social media that much?"

Social media use among young people is nearly universal now, based on surveys from the Pew Research Center. In 2022, up to 95% of teenagers surveyed (ages 13 to 17) reported using social media, and more than a third of them use it "almost constantly."

Pew has also tracked which social media platforms (or "apps") teenagers are using. In 2023, it found the majority of teens-9 out of 10 for those ages 13 to 17-use YouTube, followed by TikTok, Snapchat, and Instagram. (Their use of Facebook dropped dramatically; there was also a decrease in the use of Twitter, now called X, although that was not as steep.)

With that in mind, YCSC experts provide a guide for parents concerned about their teens' social media use.

1. Determine the age your child will have access to social media.

Experts are still exploring whether there is a "right age" for a child to access social media. The APA explains that adolescents mature at different rates, which makes establishing a universal age recommendation difficult.

Although the minimum age most commonly required by social media platforms in the U.S. is 13, nearly 40% of children ages 8-12 use social media, according to Dr. Murthy's report. That signals how difficult it can be to enforce these rules without parental supervision.

One strategy is to make a social media plan for your family long before the teenage years, Dr. Poncin says. "In my opinion, elementary school-age children should not have full-on internet access using a device with all the social media apps."

In terms of phones, they can start with a "dumbphone," a cell phone that doesn't have email, an internet browser, and other features found on smartphones, he adds.

For middle-schoolers who show maturity and responsibility-who can get themselves to sleep and do their homework, for example-additional access may be fine, notes Dr. Poncin. But he suggests delaying full access to smartphones for as long as possible, opting for a device allowing you to add more apps as your child matures.

Establishing a family social media plan might also be useful-the American Academy of Pediatrics offers a tool that can help. In addition to setting the age at which you plan to start giving your kids phones or internet access, this plan can be used to establish rules and educate children and teens about being careful about privacy settings, avoiding strangers online, not giving out personal information, and knowing how to report cyberbullying, Dr. Mayes says.

2. Keep devices out of the bedroom.

Research shows a relationship between social media use and poor sleep quality, reduced sleep duration, and sleep difficulties in young people, according to Dr. Murthy's advisory. For teens, poor sleep is linked to emotional health issues and a higher risk for suicide.

According to Dr. Murthy's report, on a typical weekday, nearly one-third of adolescents report using screen media until midnight or later. (While screen media use includes various digital activities, social media apps are the most commonly used applications by teens.)

"Knowing that, try to create a culture at home where all phones are turned off by a certain time, and make sure it's at least one hour before going to bed," Dr. Poncin says.

However, you may find that bedtime rules don't work as well as your kids get older. It may be necessary to ask your teen to put their phone outside the bedroom before going to bed. "But, if the response is, 'I do my homework late and have a group chat about math, so I'm going to need the phone to group chat,' and you suspect your teen isn't being honest, that will be a different conversation," Dr. Poncin says. "But having these open conversations is critical."

3. Keep the lines of communication open, and let your teen make mistakes.

It will be easier to talk to your teens about social media if you have comfortable conversations with them about other issues, the doctors say.

"I don't believe you should monitor the content of your teen's phone, because a teenager should have privacy," Dr. Poncin says. "An important part of the teenage years is figuring out who you are in the world. So, it's important for them to explore and even make mistakes without you hovering around them." The goal is to keep lines of communication open and establish some trust with your child, so they'll come to you if there are issues, he adds.

This, too, is similar to the advice given when parents were concerned about the impact of television on children, adds Dr. Mayes. "Research showed that watching TV in and of itself wasn't bad, but it began to have potentially negative effects on kids' behavior when it was used as a babysitter," she says. "The message to parents was to sit beside their kids and watch TV with them, and then talk about what they're watching."

Neither you nor your teen will be happy if you sit beside them and scroll down your social media feeds together, but you can take the time to ask how social media is working for them, Dr. Mayes suggests. "So, you're not saying, 'Oh no! You're on social media!' Rather, you're normalizing it and making it clear that you're willing to talk about what they're experiencing or learning. This sets it up for them to talk to you if they run into a problem, instead of going to their peers or looking for solutions online," she says.

4. Be mindful of your approach when talking to your teen.

Although keeping the line of communication open matters, how you have those conversations is equally important. If you are concerned about your teen's social media use and feel the need to intervene, you might say something like, "It seems like you're on the phone so much that I don't see you just doing homework like you used to do, so I'm just worried how healthy this is for you in terms of getting your stuff done. What do you think about that?" Dr. Poncin says.

You might even need to be more assertive, for instance, saying, "I've noticed that you're on your phone until 1 a.m. When I go to the bathroom, your light is on, and you're on your phone. That's not healthy. So, can we come up with a plan that you're most comfortable with?"

5. Follow the rules yourself.

As a parent, you are a role model and that means following all the same rules you are setting for your children-if you ask your teenager to limit their screen time, you should do so as well, says Dr. Mayes, noting that it's not uncommon to see parents looking at their phones when they are out with their kids.

You might have a hard time resisting your social media feeds, texts, and emails. Sometimes, it helps to admit to your teenagers that you find it difficult to put down your devices, too. "This a global issue, where parents want their kids to do things differently and better than they do," Dr. Poncin says. "So, once again, having an honest conversation is important."
Note: Cyberbullying and online abuse or exploitation can be reported to the school or the police, or on websites such as Take It Down and CyberTipline, according to the Surgeon General report.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Social Media Affects Your Teen's Mental Health: A Parent's Guide

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A 2023 U.S. Surgeon General advisory cited growing concerns that social media use impacts young people's mental health. Yale experts offer advice to parents.

# data[].attributes.headline
School Uniforms - Pros, Cons, Debates, Arguments, and Education

# data[].attributes.subject
School Uniforms - Pros, Cons, Debates, Arguments, and Education

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
School Uniforms | Pros, Cons, Debate, Arguments, & Education | Britannica

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Should students wear school uniforms? Learn the pros and cons of the debate.

# data[].attributes.headline
Uniforms in Public Schools for the Better

# data[].attributes.subject
Uniforms in Public Schools for the Better

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
OPINION: Uniforms in Public Schools – For the Better

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Opinions expressed in the Op/Ed section of The Knight Crier are not necessarily reflective of the views of the entire staff of the KC. Lawyers, doctors, nurses, and scientists… a few of the world’s most respected and educated career fields and they all usually wear some type of uniform. There is a reason for that,…

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Lauren Goldbeck and Alex Pew, National Center for Health Research

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The American Psychological Association says violent video games can increase aggression. How concerned should you be, and which kids are most at risk of harm?

# data[].attributes.headline
Let’s ditch the tired tropes about video games – and research their impact properly

# data[].attributes.subject
Let’s ditch the tired tropes about video games – and research their impact properly

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Over the past few years, it feels as if there has been a subtle shift in the way that we view video games. That classic trope of games being a socially isolating experience, primarily within the purview of angry, pallid teenage boys, seems increasingly tired and outdated - because it is. Video games are no longer a niche, nerdy pastime. Much the opposite: they are one of, or perhaps the defining entertainment medium of the 21st century. One estimate puts the total number of people across the globe who play video games at 3.09 billion, with data from the US suggesting that two-thirds of American adults play them, with a fairly even split between men and women.

But, even though we've moved past the most strongly negative characterisations of video games and become more accustomed to them, they're still viewed with a certain level of suspicion. And we're still presented with a seemingly endless cycle of scare stories in the news about their detrimental effects. I'm a firm believer in the huge potential of video games as a force for good in our lives, and I've written before about the benefits they can have - their ability to connect us and to allow us to explore and understand our emotions and attitudes. Nevertheless, the broad-level discussion about their impact seems to be at an impasse: games are becoming ever more popular, while commenters are often stuck in a simplistic back and forth about whether they are good or bad for us.

Part of the reason for this is that despite their ubiquity, our scientific understanding of what video games can do for us remains relatively - and surprisingly - sparse. Much like the public conversation, the academic study of gaming has often focused on the negative aspects of play, or has been a reaction to those societal concerns. This has created problems for a few reasons. First, historically a lot of the research in this area has been methodologically quite poor. Take research on the link between violent games and aggression: for decades, studies in this area were hampered by unhelpful methods of measuring aggression, such as assuming that the chance to "punish" a gaming opponent with a loud noisetells us something about real-world violence. Compounding the problem, the presence of deeply entrenched and ideological viewpoints has made adversarial collaborations - that is, getting researchers with differing beliefs to work together to figure out what the real effect is in a way that everyone is happy with - untenable.

This has meant that despite a large body of research being conducted on the topic, it has taken researchers a long time to get to a point where they could actually give us any meaningful insight. It is only recently, with the advent of more robust studies that adhere to open science principles - preregistering study protocols prior to data collection, and making the ensuing data available for everyone to see and discuss - that we've largely been able to put that topic to rest. The best evidence we have suggests that there are no substantive or long-term associations between violent video-game content and aggressive behaviours.

Second, the relentless focus on negative aspects of play has sucked the oxygen out of the room for researchers asking much more basic and more interesting questions about video games. We still don't have a clear, theoretically driven understanding of why people enjoy playing them in the first place, or where the true benefits and risks lie. Put together, it has meant that psychological scientists have had limited success in trying to move the public debate about games forward and in driving meaningful government policy changes that would maximise the benefits and minimise the potential harms of digital play.

One of the reasons the research is hard to do well is that it's extremely difficult to design experimental studies that appropriately replicate real-life gaming situations. As a 2019 government report noted, "both policymaking and potential industry interventions are being hindered by a lack of robust evidence, which in part stems from companies' unwillingness to share data about patterns of play." Put simply, doing this sort of research is surprisingly non-trivial, and it doesn't help matters that games companies are, by and large, reluctant to allow researchers access to their products or data.

Very often, psychologists have to resort to questionnaire-based surveys that ask players to self-report things, such as the amount of time they spend playing video games, how much they spend on or in them, or how they feel. We know from recent research, however, that such measures aren't particularly accurate, especially when it comes to time spent playing; surprisingly, people tend to overestimate this. If we want to make meaningful inroads into understanding the effects of video games, we need access to objective, real-world industry data, and while there have been some admirable efforts to obtain this, for the most part it's still outside the reach of most researchers.

This is why the government's publication of a new video games research framework earlier this year is so important. Identifying a need for a stronger research evidence base, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport has engaged extensively with researchers, games industry representatives and other agencies to develop a set of best-practice guidelines to push for more high-quality research in the future. In a way, it's a blueprint for thinking about how we could leverage the right sort of data to answer more meaningful and useful questions about how video games affect us. That starts with the basics of how we go about categorising different forms of game play in the first place.

The framework also lists a whole raft of priority research questions. How, for instance, do new and emerging video-game technologies affect the subjective experiences of players? What might this look like in terms of influencing our ability to relate to other people in a more compassionate way?

We don't have the answers to these sorts of questions yet, but my hope is that the framework will give us the tools we need to approach them in a rational and sensible manner. If we truly care about understanding the impact - positive and negative - that video games can have on us, now is the time to start taking them with the seriousness that they deserve.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Let's ditch the tired tropes about video games - and research their impact properly | Pete Etchells

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
No, gaming isn't a niche, violence-inducing pastime - it's the defining entertainment medium of our time, says professor of psychology Pete Etchells

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
College sports are lots of fun to watch, both for the fans in the stands and those watching from their living room. For some fans, the amateurism aspect of college sports heightens the excitement, and for others, it's the prospect of seeing young talent develop to the point at which a professional career becomes a real possibility. Yet, unlike professional athletes, college athletes do not receive salaries for their efforts.

This begs the question: Should college athletes be paid? Here, you can take a closer look at some of the arguments addressing the questions, "Why should college athletes be paid?" and "Why should college athletes not be paid?"
In This Article:
How Much Do College Athletes Get Paid?

As of May 2023, college athletes in the U.S. do not have the ability to demand a salary from their schools. This rule was established by the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), which has governed intercollegiate sports since 1906. One of the goals of the NCAA was to preserve the spirit of amateurism in collegiate sports. ¹

In the spirit of amateurism, direct compensation to athletes was banned. It was thought that fans wouldn't be as interested in watching college sports if the teams were comprised of professional athletes. It was also believed that if college athletes only received scholarships as a form of compensation, they would remain active members of the college community.

The NCAA had also prohibited collegiate athletes from receiving any compensation from their name, image or likeness (NIL). In other words, unlike professional athletes, college players could not endorse any products for money or sell autographs. In short, not only were college athletes prohibited from receiving direct compensation for their work, they also could not profit from their popularity. Athletes were also, for the most part, barred from signing with a sports agent for representation.

In June 2021, the rules changed somewhat. College athletes are still barred from receiving a salary (known as "pay for play"). However, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that these athletes could indeed enter into NIL deals, whereby they could endorse products or sell their autographs. In its opinion, the Supreme Court noted that the idea of amateurism does not automatically lend itself to immunity from antitrust laws, and that prohibiting NIL contracts could indeed violate those laws.

Understanding the Athlete Compensation Argument

Should College Athletes Be Paid?

Although college athletes are now allowed to profit from NIL contracts, they still cannot receive pay-to-play salaries from their schools. The answer to the question, "How much do college athletes get paid?" can vary quite a bit, depending on their NIL deals, if available.

While some NIL contracts may involve significant sums of money, other NIL deals are quite small, perhaps only involving free merchandise from the endorsed brand. Furthermore, not all college athletes are popular or well-known enough to land an NIL deal with a brand. The question remains: Should college athletes be paid salaries?

Why Should College Athletes Not Be Paid?

There are arguments to be made for and against paying college athletes. So, why should college athletes not be paid? First, consider the non-monetary benefits of being a college athlete.

College athletes get the opportunity to compete at a high level (albeit not a professional level). They benefit from the enjoyment of their chosen sport and from coaching that can generally be considered a higher caliber than the high school level. In addition, collegiate athletes get the opportunity to build character, sportsmanship, teamwork and other soft skills that are prized by future employers.

It could also be argued that paying athletes in college could detract from the primary purpose of college: to provide an education. College athletes who get paid to play might pay less attention to their academic obligations, putting more of an emphasis on the work that they're paid to do.

Next, consider the monetary benefits of being a college athlete (NIL contracts aside). Many college athletes receive sports scholarships, which are meant to be a form of compensation for their work. Some can even receive full-ride or full-tuition scholarships. Plus, if college athletes receive salaries on top of scholarships, it's possible that less wealthy schools are at a higher risk of losing out on recruiting top talent, which can contribute to a less competitive intercollegiate environment.

Why Should College Athletes Be Paid?

There are plenty of arguments to be made for why college athletes should not be paid. Next, take a look at the arguments in favor of paying college athletes for their work - with the emphasis on the word "work." Collegiate sports do indeed represent a considerable commitment of time and effort, often resembling a full-time job. College athletes must juggle their academic obligations while participating in practices, games, travel obligations, media obligations and so on.

In addition, playing collegiate sports places the players at risk of physical harm, particularly as it concerns contact sports like football and basketball. In placing themselves at risk for the entertainment of others, players are also risking their future livelihoods. (A serious injury could jeopardize the chances of a pro career in an otherwise talented athlete, not to mention potentially have debilitating effects on that athlete's personal life.

The financial aspects of college sports bear closer scrutiny, as well. College sports are major moneymakers for schools. The most significant sports in terms of revenue are football and basketball. Take a look at the statistics:

In 2020, during the pandemic, the NCAA generated very low profits ($519 million) due to the cancellation of college sports events, such as March Madness.²

In 2021, college sports bounced back from the effects of the pandemic, generating record revenues of $1.16 billion.³

In 2022, the NCAA generated revenue of $1.14 billion.⁴

The revenue comes from many sources, including TV contracts and sponsorships. This raises the question: If collegiate sports are generating billions of dollars, shouldn't the athletes who do the hard work on the field reap some of the rewards?

Of course, there is the argument that college athletes are already being compensated in the form of scholarships, and free college tuition is certainly nothing to sneeze at. However, it could also be pointed out that not every athlete gets a college scholarship, and not every scholarship pays all school expenses. Consider these facts: ⁵

Only Division I and Division II (D1 and D2) schools offer athletic scholarships. Division III schools do not.

The vast majority of D2 scholarships are only partial scholarships - not full-tuition or full-ride scholarships.

The full-ride scholarships available at D1 schools are often one-year deals that may or may not be renewed.

Most college sports, even at the D1 level, do not offer full scholarships. Full scholarships are generally reserved for men's basketball and football, and women's basketball, tennis, volleyball and gymnastics.

Only 1% of student athletes receive a full-ride scholarship.

If few college athletes receive scholarships and fewer still receive full scholarships, and considering that playing college sports can be equivalent to a full-time job, then an argument could indeed be made that college athletes should receive salaries for their work.

Explore the Possibilities With a Sports Management or Health Science Degree

Many people dream about becoming a professional athlete, but there is a wealth of other opportunities, such as those in sports medical science and the business aspect of the industry.

In addition to the exciting collegiate sports opportunities available at Grand Canyon University (GCU), students who are passionate about sports may want to pursue an athletic training or health science degree. The sports management degree program at GCU instills foundational competencies in sports business, including revenue generation, talent management, event operations and marketing, as well as sports-related laws and regulations.

If you feel drawn to a career in the sports world, you'll find plenty of relevant degree options at GCU. The Bachelor of Science in Sports and Entertainment Management program offered by the Colangelo College of Business can prepare you to pursue a sports management career, while the Master of Science in Athletic Training (MSAT) degree can prepare you to pursue an athletic training job. Fill out the form on this page to learn more about these and other exciting degree options at GCU.

¹ National Collegiate Athletic Association. (n.d.). National Collegiate Athletic Association. Retrieved May 8, 2023.

² Totenberg, N. (June 21, 2021). The Supreme Court Sides With NCAA Athletes in a Narrow Ruling. NPR. Retrieved May 8, 2023.

³ SportsPro. (February 3, 2022). NCAA generates record US$1.16bn revenue for 2021. SportsPro. Retrieved May 8, 2023.

⁴ Johnson, M. (January 29, 2023). NCAA revenue topped $1.1 billion in 2022. Sportsnaut. Retrieved May 8, 2023.

⁵ NCSA College Recruiting. (n.d.). Athletic Scholarships: Everything You Need to Know. NCSA College Recruiting. Retrieved May 8, 2023.

Approved by the assistant athletic director on July 19, 2023.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Should college athletes be paid? Earn your health science degree at GCU where you'll be able to explore some of the arguments for and against paying college athletes.

# data[].attributes.headline
Why the Public Strongly Supports Paying College Athletes

# data[].attributes.subject
Why the Public Strongly Supports Paying College Athletes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why The Public Strongly Supports Paying College Athletes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Nearly 70% of U.S. adults said college athletes should be able to receive direct compensation from their school when asked in a survey conducted this summer.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Pros and Cons of Standardized Testing

# data[].attributes.subject
The Pros and Cons of Standardized Testing

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Standardized testing has ignited a national debate in the last few years (or decades), and many parents feel understandably concerned about their children being judged on the basis of tests that, in some cases, don't seem to reliably correlate with actual learning or with successful college and career outcomes.

In the United States, both public and private schools use standardized assessments each school year. In public schools, students must undergo many tests to ensure they are meeting state or federal standards. Private schools have more leeway, although at Whitby we do require our students from Grade 2 on to complete the Comprehensive Testing Program from the Educational Records Bureau and the International Schools Assessment from the Australian Council for Educational Research.

At Whitby, we believe that standardized testing can benefit students-as long as it's looked at in the right light. Below we'll discuss some of the benefits of standardized assessments, as well as some of the ways standardised assessments can be negative for students.

The Pros and Cons of Standardized Testing

Pro # 1. Standardized testing is a metric for learning

When Whitby students are assessed through standardized testing, we gain a valuable metric we can use to check the quality of our curriculum. With exams created and given by an independent organization, standardized test scores are useful because they come from a neutral source and give us data that we can compare to other independent schools across the United States and with other international schools across the globe.

Pro # 2. Standardized testing helps pinpoint areas for improvement

When we receive standardized test data at Whitby, we use it to evaluate the effectiveness of our education program. We view standardized testing data as not only another set of data points to assess student performance , but also as a means to help us reflect on our curriculum. When we look at Whitby's assessment data, we can compare our students to their peers at other schools to determine what we're doing well within our educational continuum and where we need to invest more time and resources.

Pro # 3. Standardized tests can help schools evaluate progress

Assessment data is also useful for year-over-year internal comparisons. We compare data over a number of years to find trends-and then trace any changes back to their source. If the math scores of our fourth grade students suddenly jump, we want to identify what change led to the improved performance, and how we can continue to implement this within our curriculum. We're also able to use a student's historical assessment data to monitor their progress and uncover any challenges they may need to overcome (as well as identifying places where they have already improved and excelled.)
Now let's take a look at what we view as the most concerning aspects of standardized assessment:
Con #1. Test scores can impact confidence

A big disadvantage of standardized testing is that it's easy to interpret a student's score as the sole judgement of that student's ability. We're constantly emphasizing at Whitby that the number is only one point of data within an array of internal assessments across many subject areas that provide us with information on a student's learning progress. There are many cases where students have demonstrated clear understanding within a subject or concept through various assessments, but aren't as skilled at taking multiple choice tests. Nevertheless, it can be hard on a student if they feel that they didn't perform as well as they'd like. In worst case scenarios, instead of determining the entire picture of learning through a review of all assessment data with their teachers, a student might determine their success based on a standardized test score that is taken once a year..

Con #2. There's pressure to "teach to the test"

When standardized exams become all important in a school or district, it has a massive impact on teaching and learning. Educators frequently start "teaching to the test" if they feel that their evaluations (and jobs) solely depend on how well students perform. Educators may also stop trying new techniques and teaching methods in the classroom. With every minute counting on the way to their students' next exam, teachers will worry that an untested method will backfire and their students will score worse than before. This comes at the cost of inquiry, engagement, creativity and risk taking in student learning.

Con #3. Scores don't provide a true picture of a student's ability

Far too many people wrongly assume that standardized testing data provides a neutral authoritative assessment of a child's intellectual ability. Cultural factors, unfamiliarity with testing methods, test anxiety, and illness can wreak havoc with how well a student performs. For that reason, it's important to dig deeper when looking at a student's test scores. Does a low score indicate a lack of knowledge about the subject or a problem with taking the standardized test? For example, an excellent writer could struggle with picking out the right answer in a multiple choice grammar and punctuation test. Yet that same student could excel at composing well-thought out, logical essays about the literature they read and enjoyed in class.

It's also easy to assume that students who score high in math are good at processing information and reasoning abstractly, but that's not always the case. In fact, researchers have found that high standardized scores have little correlation with memory, attention and processing speed. High test scores could simply mean a student excels at rote memorization and multiple choice test taking.

Our Final Assessment

Standardized testing is truthfully a very difficult issue, because we do need internal and external assessments to measure student success. Assessments are useful when they're used as data to help schools improve the quality of the teaching and learning. They become harmful, however, when tests are used to judge students' natural abilities and when educators are put under pressure to "teach to the test." Schools and parents should always look at standardized tests not as a value judgement on the student, but as an additional data point that can provide some perspective on student learning.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Pros and Cons of Standardized Testing

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Standardized testing has ignited a national debate in the last few years (or decades), and many parents feel understandably concerned about their children being judged on the basis of tests that, in some cases, don't seem to reliably correlate with actual learning or with successful college and career outcomes.

# data[].attributes.headline
Standardized Testing is Still Failing Students

# data[].attributes.subject
Standardized Testing is Still Failing Students

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
If you didn't answer "all of the above," then: A. You haven't been paying attention, or B. You work for a testing software company.

develop a thorough analysis in an essay; conduct a laboratory investigation; curate a portfolio of student work; or complete an original research paper.

PBA allows students to demonstrate knowledge and skill through critical-thinking, problem-solving, collaboration, and the application of knowledge to real-world situations. In other words, it helps students prepare for college, career, and life.

And when they share with the class, that helps reinforces everyone's learning, she explains. None of this is possible in an individual test.

PBA also removes bias and creates more equity. For example, Holland recalls a state standardized test question about decomposition for eighth-grade science: "The question asked about grass clippings after mowing the lawn, and students got hung up on 'grass clippings,'" she says. "Some had no idea what they were because they either lived in apartments and had no lawns, or they had lawns but didn't mow them because they had landscapers."

Stronger Relationships with Students

"Students always say that working together was the best part," he says. That's the best part for the teachers, too, because it helps them build stronger relationships with students.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Standardized Testing is Still Failing Students | NEA

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Educators have long known that standardized tests are an inaccurate and unfair measure of student progress. There's a better way to assess students.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In Neal Stephenson's 1995 science fiction novel, The Diamond Age, readers meet Nell, a young girl who comes into possession of a highly advanced book, The Young Lady's Illustrated Primer. The book is not the usual static collection of texts and images but a deeply immersive tool that can converse with the reader, answer questions, and personalize its content, all in service of educating and motivating a young girl to be a strong, independent individual.

Such a device, even after the introduction of the Internet and tablet computers, has remained in the realm of science fiction-until now. Artificial intelligence, or AI, took a giant leap forward with the introduction in November 2022 of ChatGPT, an AI technology capable of producing remarkably creative responses and sophisticated analysis through human-like dialogue. It has triggered a wave of innovation, some of which suggests we might be on the brink of an era of interactive, super-intelligent tools not unlike the book Stephenson dreamed up for Nell.

Sundar Pichai, Google's CEO, calls artificial intelligence " more profound than fire or electricity or anything we have done in the past." Reid Hoffman, the founder of LinkedIn and current partner at Greylock Partners, says, "The power to make positive change in the world is about to get the biggest boost it's ever had." And Bill Gates has said that "this new wave of AI is as fundamental as the creation of the microprocessor, the personal computer, the Internet, and the mobile phone."

Over the last year, developers have released a dizzying array of AI tools that can generate text, images, music, and video with no need for complicated coding but simply in response to instructions given in natural language. These technologies are rapidly improving, and developers are introducing capabilities that would have been considered science fiction just a few years ago. AI is also raising pressing ethical questions around bias, appropriate use, and plagiarism.

In the realm of education, this technology will influence how students learn, how teachers work, and ultimately how we structure our education system. Some educators and leaders look forward to these changes with great enthusiasm. Sal Kahn, founder of Khan Academy, went so far as to say in a TED talk that AI has the potential to effect "probably the biggest positive transformation that education has ever seen." But others warn that AI will enable the spread of misinformation, facilitate cheating in school and college, kill whatever vestiges of individual privacy remain, and cause massive job loss. The challenge is to harness the positive potential while avoiding or mitigating the harm.
What Is Generative AI?
Artificial intelligence is a branch of computer science that focuses on creating software capable of mimicking behaviors and processes we would consider "intelligent" if exhibited by humans, including reasoning, learning, problem-solving, and exercising creativity. AI systems can be applied to an extensive range of tasks, including language translation, image recognition, navigating autonomous vehicles, detecting and treating cancer, and, in the case of generative AI, producing content and knowledge rather than simply searching for and retrieving it.

" Foundation models " in generative AI are systems trained on a large dataset to learn a broad base of knowledge that can then be adapted to a range of different, more specific purposes. This learning method is self-supervised, meaning the model learns by finding patterns and relationships in the data it is trained on.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are foundation models that have been trained on a vast amount of text data. For example, the training data for OpenAI's GPT model consisted of web content, books, Wikipedia articles, news articles, social media posts, code snippets, and more. OpenAI's GPT-3 models underwent training on a staggering 300 billion "tokens" or word pieces, using more than 175 billion parameters to shape the model's behavior-nearly 100 times more data than the company's GPT-2 model had.

By doing this analysis across billions of sentences, LLM models develop a statistical understanding of language: how words and phrases are usually combined, what topics are typically discussed together, and what tone or style is appropriate in different contexts. That allows it to generate human-like text and perform a wide range of tasks, such as writing articles, answering questions, or analyzing unstructured data.

LLMs include OpenAI's GPT-4, Google's PaLM, and Meta's LLaMA. These LLMs serve as "foundations" for AI applications. ChatGPT is built on GPT-3.5 and GPT-4, while Bard uses Google's Pathways Language Model 2 (PaLM 2) as its foundation.

Some of the best-known applications are:

ChatGPT 3.5. The free version of ChatGPT released by OpenAI in November 2022. It was trained on data only up to 2021, and while it is very fast, it is prone to inaccuracies.

ChatGPT 4.0. The newest version of ChatGPT, which is more powerful and accurate than ChatGPT 3.5 but also slower, and it requires a paid account. It also has extended capabilities through plug-ins that give it the ability to interface with content from websites, perform more sophisticated mathematical functions, and access other services. A new Code Interpreter feature gives ChatGPT the ability to analyze data, create charts, solve math problems, edit files, and even develop hypotheses to explain data trends.

Microsoft Bing Chat. An iteration of Microsoft's Bing search engine that is enhanced with OpenAI's ChatGPT technology. It can browse websites and offers source citations with its results.

Google Bard. Google's AI generates text, translates languages, writes different kinds of creative content, and writes and debugs code in more than 20 different programming languages. The tone and style of Bard's replies can be finetuned to be simple, long, short, professional, or casual. Bard also leverages Google Lens to analyze images uploaded with prompts.

Anthropic Claude 2. A chatbot that can generate text, summarize content, and perform other tasks, Claude 2 can analyze texts of roughly 75,000 words-about the length of The Great Gatsby -and generate responses of more than 3,000 words. The model was built using a set of principles that serve as a sort of "constitution" for AI systems, with the aim of making them more helpful, honest, and harmless.

These AI systems have been improving at a remarkable pace, including in how well they perform on assessments of human knowledge. OpenAI's GPT-3.5, which was released in March 2022, only managed to score in the 10th percentile on the bar exam, but GPT-4.0, introduced a year later, made a significant leap, scoring in the 90th percentile. What makes these feats especially impressive is that OpenAI did not specifically train the system to take these exams; the AI was able to come up with the correct answers on its own. Similarly, Google's medical AI model substantially improved its performance on a U.S. Medical Licensing Examination practice test, with its accuracy rate jumping to 85 percent in March 2021 from 33 percent in December 2020.

These two examples prompt one to ask: if AI continues to improve so rapidly, what will these systems be able to achieve in the next few years? What's more, new studies challenge the assumption that AI-generated responses are stale or sterile. In the case of Google's AI model, physicians preferred the AI's long-form answers to those written by their fellow doctors, and nonmedical study participants rated the AI answers as more helpful. Another study found that participants preferred a medical chatbot's responses over those of a physician and rated them significantly higher, not just for quality but also for empathy. What will happen when "empathetic" AI is used in education?

Other studies have looked at the reasoning capabilities of these models. Microsoft researchers suggest that newer systems "exhibit more general intelligence than previous AI models" and are coming "strikingly close to human-level performance." While some observers question those conclusions, the AI systems display an increasing ability to generate coherent and contextually appropriate responses, make connections between different pieces of information, and engage in reasoning processes such as inference, deduction, and analogy.

Despite their prodigious capabilities, these systems are not without flaws. At times, they churn out information that might sound convincing but is irrelevant, illogical, or entirely false-an anomaly known as "hallucination." The execution of certain mathematical operations presents another area of difficulty for AI. And while these systems can generate well-crafted and realistic text, understanding why the model made specific decisions or predictions can be challenging.
The Importance of Well-Designed Prompts
Using generative AI systems such as ChatGPT, Bard, and Claude 2 is relatively simple. One has only to type in a request or a task (called a prompt), and the AI generates a response. Properly constructed prompts are essential for getting useful results from generative AI tools. You can ask generative AI to analyze text, find patterns in data, compare opposing arguments, and summarize an article in different ways (see sidebar for examples of AI prompts).

One challenge is that, after using search engines for years, people have been preconditioned to phrase questions in a certain way. A search engine is something like a helpful librarian who takes a specific question and points you to the most relevant sources for possible answers. The search engine (or librarian) doesn't create anything new but efficiently retrieves what's already there.

Generative AI is more akin to a competent intern. You give a generative AI tool instructions through prompts, as you would to an intern, asking it to complete a task and produce a product. The AI interprets your instructions, thinks about the best way to carry them out, and produces something original or performs a task to fulfill your directive. The results aren't pre-made or stored somewhere-they're produced on the fly, based on the information the intern (generative AI) has been trained on. The output often depends on the precision and clarity of the instructions (prompts) you provide. A vague or poorly defined prompt might lead the AI to produce less relevant results. The more context and direction you give it, the better the result will be. What's more, the capabilities of these AI systems are being enhanced through the introduction of versatile plug-ins that equip them to browse websites, analyze data files, or access other services. Think of this as giving your intern access to a group of experts to help accomplish your tasks.

One strategy in using a generative AI tool is first to tell it what kind of expert or persona you want it to "be." Ask it to be an expert management consultant, a skilled teacher, a writing tutor, or a copy editor, and then give it a task.

Prompts can also be constructed to get these AI systems to perform complex and multi-step operations. For example, let's say a teacher wants to create an adaptive tutoring program-for any subject, any grade, in any language-that customizes the examples for students based on their interests. She wants each lesson to culminate in a short-response or multiple-choice quiz. If the student answers the questions correctly, the AI tutor should move on to the next lesson. If the student responds incorrectly, the AI should explain the concept again, but using simpler language.

Previously, designing this kind of interactive system would have required a relatively sophisticated and expensive software program. With ChatGPT, however, just giving those instructions in a prompt delivers a serviceable tutoring system. It isn't perfect, but remember that it was built virtually for free, with just a few lines of English language as a command. And nothing in the education market today has the capability to generate almost limitless examples to connect the lesson concept to students' interests.

Chained prompts can also help focus AI systems. For example, an educator can prompt a generative AI system first to read a practice guide from the What Works Clearinghouse and summarize its recommendations. Then, in a follow-up prompt, the teacher can ask the AI to develop a set of classroom activities based on what it just read. By curating the source material and using the right prompts, the educator can anchor the generated responses in evidence and high-quality research.

However, much like fledgling interns learning the ropes in a new environment, AI does commit occasional errors. Such fallibility, while inevitable, underlines the critical importance of maintaining rigorous oversight of AI's output. Monitoring not only acts as a crucial checkpoint for accuracy but also becomes a vital source of real-time feedback for the system. It's through this iterative refinement process that an AI system, over time, can significantly minimize its error rate and increase its efficacy.
Uses of AI in Education
In May 2023, the U.S. Department of Education released a report titled Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Teaching and Learning: Insights and Recommendations. The department had conducted listening sessions in 2022 with more than 700 people, including educators and parents, to gauge their views on AI. The report noted that "constituents believe that action is required now in order to get ahead of the expected increase of AI in education technology-and they want to roll up their sleeves and start working together." People expressed anxiety about "future potential risks" with AI but also felt that " AI may enable achieving educational priorities in better ways, at scale, and with lower costs."

AI could serve-or is already serving-in several teaching-and-learning roles:

Instructional assistants. AI's ability to conduct human-like conversations opens up possibilities for adaptive tutoring or instructional assistants that can help explain difficult concepts to students. AI-based feedback systems can offer constructive critiques on student writing, which can help students fine-tune their writing skills. Some research also suggests certain kinds of prompts can help children generate more fruitful questions about learning. AI models might also support customized learning for students with disabilities and provide translation for English language learners.

Teaching assistants. AI might tackle some of the administrative tasks that keep teachers from investing more time with their peers or students. Early uses include automated routine tasks such as drafting lesson plans, creating differentiated materials, designing worksheets, developing quizzes, and exploring ways of explaining complicated academic materials. AI can also provide educators with recommendations to meet student needs and help teachers reflect, plan, and improve their practice.

Parent assistants. Parents can use AI to generate letters requesting individualized education plan (IEP) services or to ask that a child be evaluated for gifted and talented programs. For parents choosing a school for their child, AI could serve as an administrative assistant, mapping out school options within driving distance of home, generating application timelines, compiling contact information, and the like. Generative AI can even create bedtime stories with evolving plots tailored to a child's interests.

Administrator assistants. Using generative AI, school administrators can draft various communications, including materials for parents, newsletters, and other community-engagement documents. AI systems can also help with the difficult tasks of organizing class or bus schedules, and they can analyze complex data to identify patterns or needs. ChatGPT can perform sophisticated sentiment analysis that could be useful for measuring school-climate and other survey data.

Though the potential is great, most teachers have yet to use these tools. A Morning Consult and EdChoice poll found that while 60 percent say they've heard about ChatGPT, only 14 percent have used it in their free time, and just 13 percent have used it at school. It's likely that most teachers and students will engage with generative AI not through the platforms themselves but rather through AI capabilities embedded in software. Instructional providers such as Khan Academy, Varsity Tutors, and DuoLingo are experimenting with GPT-4-powered tutors that are trained on datasets specific to these organizations to provide individualized learning support that has additional guardrails to help protect students and enhance the experience for teachers.

Google's Project Tailwind is experimenting with an AI notebook that can analyze student notes and then develop study questions or provide tutoring support through a chat interface. These features could soon be available on Google Classroom, potentially reaching over half of all U.S. classrooms. Brisk Teaching is one of the first companies to build a portfolio of AI services designed specifically for teachers-differentiating content, drafting lesson plans, providing student feedback, and serving as an AI assistant to streamline workflow among different apps and tools.

Providers of curriculum and instruction materials might also include AI assistants for instant help and tutoring tailored to the companies' products. One example is the edX Xpert, a ChatGPT-based learning assistant on the edX platform. It offers immediate, customized academic and customer support for online learners worldwide.

Regardless of the ways AI is used in classrooms, the fundamental task of policymakers and education leaders is to ensure that the technology is serving sound instructional practice. As Vicki Phillips, CEO of the National Center on Education and the Economy, wrote, "We should not only think about how technology can assist teachers and learners in improving what they're doing now, but what it means for ensuring that new ways of teaching and learning flourish alongside the applications of AI."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The leap into a new era of machine intelligence carries risks and challenges, but also plenty of promise

# data[].attributes.headline
The Promise and Peril of AI for Education

# data[].attributes.subject
The Promise and Peril of AI for Education

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Promise and Peril of AI for Education (Opinion)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As GPS did for our sense of direction, AI could erode students’ connection to knowledge.

# data[].attributes.headline
Implementing School-Based Mental Health Services: A Scoping Review of the Literature Summarizing the Factors That Affect Implementation

# data[].attributes.subject
Implementing School-Based Mental Health Services: A Scoping Review of the Literature Summarizing the Factors That Affect Implementation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Implementing School-Based Mental Health Services: A Scoping Review of the Literature Summarizing the Factors That Affect Implementation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Background: Mental illness in children and youths has become an increasing problem. School-based mental health services (SBMHS) are an attempt to increase accessibility to mental health services. The effects of these services seem positive, with…

# data[].attributes.headline
Is mental health an excuse to miss school?

# data[].attributes.subject
Is mental health an excuse to miss school?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As a kid, I remember the days when my mom and I would play hooky. As long as my grades were good and my responsibilities were taken care of, once in a while I would get to skip school. My mom would pull me out for the day and we'd go do something fun together-just the two of us.

We work with a lot of adolescents and young adults in our clinic (probably because we're physically close to several high schools and universities... but it could just be our awesome, youth-friendly therapists, too ;) ) Isn't it cool that this generation is seeking increased support and is willing to talk about their mental health? Yay! We love to see stigmas being broken.

But with the mental health needs in our youth, we often get asked by parents and the young people themselves this question:

Is it okay to skip school due to anxiety or feeling stressed?

While attending university, I remember a friend who just could not get up off the couch to go to class. At the time, I did not know she was struggling with depression. I just thought she was lazy. I now know how judgement and lacking compassion I was, and am grateful to have learned from my experience. I sometimes have still found myself asking, why couldn't she just get up and go to class?

Is it ever okay to stop going to school because we're feeling anxious, stressed, or depressed?

School can be overwhelming. The pressures of tests, performance, social interactions, and learning new concepts can feel all but daunting. Yet, there are fantastic ways to challenge our brains, make friends, challenge ourselves, and grow all within the school environment. There's a lot going on.

I recently heard a parent say to their child, "You shouldn't take a mental health day and skip school because in the real work you can't skip work for mental health. You only take a day off if you're sick, because if you take time off for anything else you don't get paid, and if you skip work a lot you may get fired. We shouldn't teach kids to skip school."

Clearly, this parent must have either loved high school or forgot just how crummy it can sometimes be. School is hard and it is a different experience for each person. Some of the crummy things people deal with in school simply do not exist in the work force. Trying to tell kids to just "suck it up" and "move on" invalidates their experiences. It means we'll see more teen suicides and school shootings, all the while just scratching our heads wondering how on earth they happened.

According to a new study by Verywell Mind and Parents, 60% of parents of children ages 8 to 17 say the pandemic has at least somewhat affected their child's mental health. Additionally, over a third of parents observed mood and behavior changes in their children, with 37% noticing their child having a harder time socializing.

12 states have already implemented mental health days in their schools. (Utah has since May of 2021!) 77% of parents who have let their child take a mental health day on their own, feel the day had a positive impact. Instead of a typical school day, children spent the day talking about their feelings, spending time in nature or just relaxing.

Many companies have gone away from specific "sick days" or "vacation days" and now give combined PTO (Paid Time Off) which can be used at the employee's discretion-for illness, mental health days, vacations, etc. So, "in the real world" there are times when you can take a break when it's needed.

School is hard and unforgiving. Sometimes you just need a break to get on top of your own thoughts. If you or your child feel like taking a day off will help, then why not? Just make sure they can catch up on any work missed. No one should be taking time off from school just to avoid having to sit through a difficult test or to hand in an assignment.

The idea is to take a day off, once in a while, to clear your head and to feel good. Taking a day off shouldn't make your situations work by making you miss out on work or fall behind in school.

Students who deal with anxiety, stress, or depression shouldn't skip school consistently. If you or your young person always feels like school is overwhelming or they just can't go, it may be time to talk to friends, parents, and support services. You might want to talk to the school, too, if this is a common thing in yours or your child's life.

If your teen or young adult is struggling with school refusal, phobia, anxiety or any mental health issues that you have exhausted your local resources with trying to find help, contact us today to find out more about the benefits of our therapeutic services to help get them back on track.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Is mental health an excuse to miss school?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As a kid, I remember the days when my mom and I would play hooky. As long as my grades were good and my responsibilities were taken care of, once in a while I would get to skip school. My mom would pull me out for the day and we'd go do something fun together-just the two of us.

# data[].attributes.headline
How Does the U.S. Healthcare System Compare to Other Countries?

# data[].attributes.subject
How Does the U.S. Healthcare System Compare to Other Countries?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Does the U.S. Healthcare System Compare to Other Countries?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Despite higher healthcare spending, America’s health outcomes are not any better than those in other developed countries. Despite higher healthcare spending, America’s health outcomes are not any better than those in other developed countries.

# data[].attributes.headline
Why Medicare-for-all is Not a Good Idea for America

# data[].attributes.subject
Why Medicare-for-all is Not a Good Idea for America

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Senator Bernie Sanders recently announced his Medicare-for-All bill. This is basically the senate version of the congressional bill introduced by Pramila Jayapal. The bill would eliminate the insurance industry and much of the billing bureaucracy that exists today. It would provide health care coverage for everyone and eliminate copays and deductibles. It would expand Medicare coverage to include dental, vision and long-term nursing home care.

There are many questions about how this approach to universal care would be funded. No budget has been provided, though estimates vary from an annual increase in cost of $3.2 trillion to an annual savings of $600 billion. Jayapal said it would likely require raising taxes on the wealthy, and Sanders suggested this could be up to 70%. Another option could be taxing investment income at the same rate as stock sales.

Under the Medicare-for-All plan, private insurance would be eliminated and physicians who are in private practice would be paid on a fee-for-service basis through a national fee schedule, likely at the current Medicare rate or slightly lower. By eliminating the insurance industry, the plan would also eliminate one million jobs. The new fee schedule would be significantly lower than the current industry fee schedule, which means Medicare-for-All would likely lower physician incomes in a significant way, making a bad situation for physicians even worse.

There are three basic objections to Medicare-for-All. The first is that taxes would go up, so it would not receive bipartisan support. The second is that it's a vote loser. When Americans are polled, 70% say that they approve of Medicare-for-All. However, when a follow-up question is asked, in which it is made clear that this means everybody would be required to have it, support drops to 38%. The third and perhaps most important objection is that many experienced doctors would simply leave the profession, and this problem is not solved by retaining the commercial insurance corporations, since this is merely retaining a system that needs to change.

Physicians are the single most important service provider in any healthcare system, and we are facing a shortage. The Association of American Medical Colleges projects that this shortage will worsen, even without the negative influence of Medicare-for-All. And doctors face the highest burnout rate among all professions -- as many as 46% of doctors in the U.S. have suffered from burnout at some time in their careers, according to Dr. Dike Drummond in his article from Family Practice Management Journal.

In our book, "Healing American Healthcare," we describe our Eichhorn-Hutchinson plan. There are six critical objectives that, if achieved, could improve quality while reducing the cost of healthcare by as much $1 trillion per year:

1. Provide universal health care by requiring all employers to provide health insurance for their employees. Establish and provide a national health care option, which we have named Allcare, which would provide the same minimum benefits of the Medicare program. We estimate that the cost of Allcare would be 30% below the average cost of employer-based health insurance today as established by the annual Kaiser Family Foundation Survey. Existing insurers would be invited to compete, and could develop Medicare Advantage-like plans to expand benefit offerings to people under the age of 65.

2. Control drug costs through the establishment of a national negotiating platform that would be shared with all health care systems to prevent and eliminate price gouging in the pharmaceutical industry and unreasonable hospital markups of drugs they administer to their patients. The goal is to reduce the per capita costs of our medications to match the per capita cost of other industrialized democracies. Nonprofit hospitals and nonprofit hospital systems that earn operating profits would be required to pay income tax at the corporate rate.

3. Reduce the complexity and bureaucracy of billing by having a national standard for the cost of care: a national chargemaster for all services provided for patients at any hospital or clinic or doctor's office anywhere in the US regardless of the provider's tax status as for-profit or nonprofit entities.

4. Eliminate hospital facility fees for outpatient testing and standardize all imaging and lab testing fees. While this would be a loss of revenue for hospitals, at the same time hospitals would gain by not having to provide indigent care, since everyone would be insured, and by shedding much of their bureaucratic overhead.

5. Use the health care data that is available to monitor costs, improve quality, and reduce waste, and recommend that Accountable Care Organizations be provided with this data as they work to control costs and improve patient outcomes.

6. Massively reduce the complexity of the Electronic Health Record, or EHR, and EHR-associated measures of efficiency and quality, which are burdensome, insulting and actually reduce efficiency and quality. The EHR is the number one cause of physician burnout - let's let doctors go back to being doctors.

We also believe that employers and individuals should have choice in selecting health insurance. Under our plan, employers could be self-insured, contract with private insurance companies or contract with Allcare. In each case they could have Gold, Silver or Bronze plans to expand physician networks for their employees. This layered plan would allow anyone to be insured at the level of basic Medicare, but by paying extra would gain access to larger pools of doctors. Individuals could also choose between Allcare and private insurance.

Our proposed plan reduces bureaucracy and medical waste, while improving quality and creating much-needed competition. Savings to corporations alone would be as much as $174 billion annually.

Today, 15 million Medicaid beneficiaries are employed. Under our plan, they and their families would receive health insurance through their employers. This would reduce the cost of the Medicaid program by 31%.

We believe that our plan provides an opportunity for legislative compromise. Both liberal and moderate Democrats want a universal health care system that covers all Americans. They would like a single-payer system like Medicare-for-All or a combination of public and private payers that would cover everyone. Historically Republicans would like to reduce the federal deficit, and it is likely that they feel a more urgent need to do so with the passage of the tax cut of 2018 that is projected to increase the deficit. Efforts to reduce the federal deficit will likely in part focus on expenditures for Medicare and Medicaid. They also want to give people more choice in health care. All of these goals could be accomplished with the adoption of the Eichhorn Hutchinson Health Care Plan.

There are some key differences between our plan and Medicare-for-All:

· Medicare-for-All is funded by taxation. Our plan is largely employer-based.

· Medicare-for-All eliminates the health insurance industry. Our plan does not.

· Medicare-for-All eliminates choice in healthcare. Our plan increases choice.

· Medicare-for-All requires hospitals to go to regulated budgeting. Our plan does not.

· Medicare-for-All does not directly address hospital markups. Our plan does.

· Medicare-for-All dictates staffing levels for all hospitals. Our plan does not.

· Medicare-for-All controls and lowers physician income. Our plan does not.

· Medicare-for-All does not address the high cost of medical education. Our plan does.

· Medicare-for-All does not address clinical waste. Our plan does.

· Medicare-for-All saves $6 trillion over 10 years. Our plan saves $10 trillion.

· Medicare-for-All negotiates drug price. Our plan would also limit patent extensions.

· Medicare-for-All is a plan proposed by Democrats. Our plan has bipartisan appeal.

While it has good intentions, Medicare-for-All is the wrong path for the future of healthcare in America. We need a plan which brings universal healthcare to America, one that would improve quality, improve outcomes, expand competition and lower costs.

Our plan would make American healthcare once again the envy of the world, as it should be.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why Medicare-for-All Is Not Good for America

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Senator Bernie Sanders recently announced his Medicare-for-All bill. This is basically the senate version of the congressional bill introduced by Pramila Jayapal. The bill would eliminate the insurance industry and much of the billing bureaucracy that exists today. It would provide health care coverage for everyone and eliminate copays and deductibles.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Think about it. Your brain is always "on." It takes care of your thoughts and movements, your breathing and heartbeat, your senses - it works hard 24/7, even while you're asleep. This means your brain requires a constant supply of fuel. That "fuel" comes from the foods you eat - and what's in that fuel makes all the difference. Put simply, what you eat directly affects the structure and function of your brain and, ultimately, your mood.

Like an expensive car, your brain functions best when it gets only premium fuel. Eating high-quality foods that contain lots of vitamins, minerals, and antioxidants nourishes the brain and protects it from oxidative stress - the "waste" (free radicals) produced when the body uses oxygen, which can damage cells.

Unfortunately, just like an expensive car, your brain can be damaged if you ingest anything other than premium fuel. If substances from "low-premium" fuel (such as what you get from processed or refined foods) get to the brain, it has little ability to get rid of them. Diets high in refined sugars, for example, are harmful to the brain. In addition to worsening your body's regulation of insulin, they also promote inflammation and oxidative stress. Multiple studies have found a correlation between a diet high in refined sugars and impaired brain function - and even a worsening of symptoms of mood disorders, such as depression.

It makes sense. If your brain is deprived of good-quality nutrition, or if free radicals or damaging inflammatory cells are circulating within the brain's enclosed space, further contributing to brain tissue injury, consequences are to be expected. What's interesting is that for many years, the medical field did not fully acknowledge the connection between mood and food.

Today, fortunately, the burgeoning field of nutritional psychiatry is finding there are many consequences and correlations between not only what you eat, how you feel, and how you ultimately behave, but also the kinds of bacteria that live in your gut.

How the foods you eat affect your mental health

Serotonin is a neurotransmitter that helps regulate sleep and appetite, mediate moods, and inhibit pain. Since about 95% of your serotonin is produced in your gastrointestinal tract, and your gastrointestinal tract is lined with a hundred million nerve cells, or neurons, it makes sense that the inner workings of your digestive system don't just help you digest food, but also guide your emotions. What's more, the function of these neurons - and the production of neurotransmitters like serotonin - is highly influenced by the billions of "good" bacteria that make up your intestinal microbiome. These bacteria play an essential role in your health. They protect the lining of your intestines and ensure they provide a strong barrier against toxins and "bad" bacteria; they limit inflammation; they improve how well you absorb nutrients from your food; and they activate neural pathways that travel directly between the gut and the brain.

Studies have compared "traditional" diets, like the Mediterranean diet and the traditional Japanese diet, to a typical "Western" diet and have shown that the risk of depression is 25% to 35% lower in those who eat a traditional diet. Scientists account for this difference because these traditional diets tend to be high in vegetables, fruits, unprocessed grains, and fish and seafood, and to contain only modest amounts of lean meats and dairy. They are also void of processed and refined foods and sugars, which are staples of the "Western" dietary pattern. In addition, many of these unprocessed foods are fermented, and therefore act as natural probiotics.

This may sound implausible to you, but the notion that good bacteria not only influence what your gut digests and absorbs, but that they also affect the degree of inflammation throughout your body, as well as your mood and energy level, is gaining traction among researchers.

Nutritional psychiatry: What does it mean for you?

Start paying attention to how eating different foods makes you feel - not just in the moment, but the next day. Try eating a "clean" diet for two to three weeks - that means cutting out all processed foods and sugar. See how you feel. Then slowly introduce foods back into your diet, one by one, and see how you feel.

When some people "go clean," they cannot believe how much better they feel both physically and emotionally, and how much worse they then feel when they reintroduce the foods that are known to enhance inflammation.

Adapted from a Harvard Health Blog post by Eva Selhub, MD

Image: Pablo_K/Getty Images

About the Author

Eva Selhub MD, Contributing Editor

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Nutritional psychiatry: Your brain on food - Harvard Health

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Unhealthy diets and malnutrition | NCD Alliance

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Strategies to tackle unhealthy diets and malnutrition, leading to overweight, obesity and many diseases, should include policies to improve the food system.

# data[].attributes.headline
Five Things About Juvenile Delinquency Intervention and Treatment

# data[].attributes.subject
Five Things About Juvenile Delinquency Intervention and Treatment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Juvenile delinquency intervention and treatment programs have the broad goals of preventing crime and reducing recidivism by providing treatment and services to youth who have committed crimes.

The five statements below are based on practices and programs rated by CrimeSolutions.[1]

1. Juvenile awareness programs may be ineffective and potentially harmful.

Juvenile awareness programs - like Scared Straight - involve organized visits to adult prison facilities for adjudicated youth and youth at risk of adjudication. Based on the review and rating by CrimeSolutions of two meta-analyses of existing research, youth participating in these types of programs were more likely to commit offenses in the future than adjudicated youth and youth at risk of adjudication who did not. Consequently, recidivism rates were, on average, higher for participants compared to juveniles who went through regular case processing.

The results suggest that not only are juvenile awareness programs ineffective at deterring youth from committing crimes, but youth exposed to them are more likely to commit offenses in the future.

Read the practice profile Juvenile Awareness Programs (Scared Straight) to learn more.

2. Cognitive behavioral therapy can effectively reduce aggression in children and adolescents.

Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is a problem-focused, therapeutic approach that attempts to help people identify and change the dysfunctional beliefs, thoughts, and patterns that contribute to their problem behaviors. CBT programs are delivered in various settings, including juvenile detention facilities. Based on the review and rating by CrimeSolutions of two meta-analyses of existing research, a variant of CBT focused specifically on children and adolescents who have anger-related problems is effective for reducing aggression and anger expression, and for improving self-control, problem-solving, and social competencies.

Read the practice profile Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Anger-Related Problems in Children and Adolescents to learn more.

3. Multisystemic therapy for juveniles reduces recidivism, rearrests, and the total number of days incarcerated.

Multisystemic therapy is a family- and community-based treatment program for adolescents with criminal offense histories and serious antisocial, delinquent, and other problem behaviors. Based on the review and rating by CrimeSolutions of three randomized controlled trials (each evaluating a program in a different state), the program effectively reduced rearrests and number of days incarcerated.

Read the program profile Multisystemic Therapy to learn more.

4. Intensive supervision of juveniles - the conditions of which may vary - has not been found to reduce recidivism.

This practice consists of increased supervision and control of youth on probation in the community, compared with those on traditional community supervision. Intensive supervision programs have three primary features: 1) smaller caseloads for juvenile probation officers, 2) more frequent face-to-face contacts, and 3) strict conditions of compliance with stiffer penalties for violations. Other conditions may vary, but they can include electronic monitoring, drug/urinalysis testing, and participation in programming (such as tutoring, counseling, or job training). Based on the review and rating by CrimeSolutions of three meta-analyses of existing research, the practice does not reduce recidivism.

Read the practice profile Juvenile Intensive Supervision Programs to learn more.

5. Incarceration-based therapeutic communities for juveniles with substance use disorders have not been found to reduce recidivism after release.

Incarceration-based therapeutic communities employ a comprehensive, residential drug-treatment program model for youth in a detention facility who have substance use disorders. Therapeutic communities are designed to foster changes in attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors related to substance use and to reduce subsequent criminal offending. Based on the review and rating by CrimeSolutions of two meta-analyses of existing research, incarceration-based therapeutic communities have not been found to reduce recidivism after release for those who participate.

Read the practice profile Incarceration-Based Therapeutic Communities for Juveniles to learn more.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Five Things About Juvenile Delinquency Intervention and Treatment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Juvenile delinquency intervention and treatment programs have the broad goals of preventing crime and reducing recidivism by providing treatment and services to youth who have committed crimes. The five statements below are based on practices and programs rated by CrimeSolutions.[1]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The juvenile correctional system emphasizes treatment and rehabilitation in the belief that youthful offenders can reform and potentially avoid a life that leads to incarceration […]