View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

An Inquiry-Based Approach to Understanding Well-Being and Smartphone Usage: Constructing Research with Adolescent Students

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: An Inquiry-Based Approach to Understanding Well-Being and Smartphone Usage: Constructing Research with Adolescent Students
Language: English
Authors: Deborah Cockerham (ORCID 0000-0002-5357-154X), Tandra Tyler-Wood, Lin Lin
Source: Mind, Brain, and Education. 2024 18(2):200-209.
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 10
Publication Date: 2024
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Handheld Devices, Telecommunications, Adolescents, Inquiry, Critical Thinking, Personal Autonomy, Scientific Research, Student Research, Museums, Well Being, Psychological Patterns, Positive Attitudes
DOI: 10.1111/mbe.12405
ISSN: 1751-2271
1751-228X
Abstract: Inquiry can be an effective educational strategy for building critical thinking and student agency, but it is also a catalyst for scientific research. This study built upon a foundation of inquiry as 25 adolescents participated in a nine-week guided inquiry curriculum focused on smartphones and digital responsibility. As participants developed personally meaningful inquiries and designed investigations into smartphone usage, they became co-researchers who conducted their own research studies at a large museum. The study examines to what extent participants show changes in their (1) sense of well-being; (2) awareness of personal smartphone usage. Pre- and post-intervention data compared participants' personal awareness of smartphone usage and investigated participants' well-being. Results showed significant increases in positive affect and smartphone awareness, with significant decreases in negative affect. This study provides important insights for teachers and researchers by highlighting the positive educational impacts of two-way dialogue between research and education.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2024
Accession Number: EJ1424271
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGjuqEIt262uNoT-AAws6sqAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDL3bhVIdx1CeyyDPdQIBEICBm3dNpfLduCFq6KcAe0aTrK4H7GOg3NkaMIVViWCufZWEZEsHceuZ3Ttg1S-p0FYjh_Iest9dKHl9kz0E6zVeeSMIQ3h1q0nm1w6L7FnfZZ_5joZkyNadTYoI8f8ubukkN8nHW9PDPfB6nVDvujlmUHGt7XnQXIzmISlQVisiYI-b5kKSz93DQzuKbcs5I1XUbSt2rn0bq25R088Z
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0177193320;[309x]01may.24;2024May15.07:15;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0177193320-1">An Inquiry‐based Approach to Understanding Well‐being and Smartphone Usage: Constructing Research with Adolescent Students </title> <p>Inquiry can be an effective educational strategy for building critical thinking and student agency, but it is also a catalyst for scientific research. This study built upon a foundation of inquiry as 25 adolescents participated in a nine‐week guided inquiry curriculum focused on smartphones and digital responsibility. As participants developed personally meaningful inquiries and designed investigations into smartphone usage, they became co‐researchers who conducted their own research studies at a large museum. The study examines to what extent participants show changes in their (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>) sense of well‐being; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref2">2</reflink>) awareness of personal smartphone usage. Pre‐ and post‐intervention data compared participants' personal awareness of smartphone usage and investigated participants' well‐being. Results showed significant increases in positive affect and smartphone awareness, with significant decreases in negative affect. This study provides important insights for teachers and researchers by highlighting the positive educational impacts of two‐way dialogue between research and education.</p> <p>Inquiry is both an effective educational strategy for building critical thinking and student agency and a catalyst for scientific research. This study was built upon a foundation of inquiry as 25 adolescents who participated in a nine‐week inquiry‐based digital responsibility curriculum conducted personally meaningful research into human/smartphone interactions. Participants significantly increased in positive affect and smartphone awareness, and significantly decreased in negative affect. Results highlight the positive educational impacts of two‐way dialogue between research and education.</p> <p>For adolescents trying to navigate the challenges and unpredictability of an ever‐changing world, smartphones may add a level of complexity. Although approximately 95% of adolescents in the United States either own or have access to a smartphone (Vogels, Gelles‐Watnick, & Massarat, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref3">52</reflink>]), few receive training on appropriate smartphone usage. The youth often quickly learn the "how" of using the devices, but may not understand the "why", "when", or "what if" that distinguishes between beneficial and dangerous smartphone uses and tools.</p> <p>The International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref4">25</reflink>]) advocates for school‐based training that supports youth in developing a fuller understanding of smartphone use, opportunities, dangers, and impacts. Such training is critical for building digital skills that can support student success and increase student confidence for living and working in a complex world (James, Weinstein, & Mendoza, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref5">28</reflink>]). By situating smartphone training within school classrooms, students across demographics can participate in empirically tested curriculums for building relevant smartphone skills. In addition, grounding the training in an instructional approach that moves adolescents from "passive recipients of knowledge to providers of essential voices" (Jacquez, Vaughn, Deters, Wells, & Maynard, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref6">27</reflink>]) can engage and motivate students by involving them as agents in their own learning.</p> <p>As digital training curriculums are developed, their efficacy must be researched in school environments with research methods designed to positively impact education (Jacquez et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref7">27</reflink>]). Participatory action research (PAR), in which participants serve as co‐researchers to solve issues and answer questions that are personally relevant, has been seen as an effective research approach that can benefit both researchers and educators (Cockerham, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref8">8</reflink>]). In the current study, youth involved in a guided inquiry curriculum became co‐researchers in PAR who developed and investigated questions related to digital responsibility and smartphone usage. Findings concerning participants' well‐being and awareness of smartphone usage provide important insights into adolescent‐smartphone relationships, and will be of value to educational researchers, practitioners, psychologists, and educational technologists. This study contributes to Mind, Brain and Education (MBE) research by highlighting the positive educational impacts of two‐way dialogue between research and education.</p> <hd id="AN0177193320-2">LITERATURE REVIEW</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0177193320-3">Adolescents and Smartphones</hd> <p>Adolescent relationships with smartphones can be complicated. Because mobile devices became widely available before today's adolescents were born, teenagers have never known life without smartphones. Many grew up watching parents and other adults use smartphones regularly, but, at the same time, hearing warnings about the dangers of smartphone use (George et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref9">22</reflink>]). Some of these concerns centered around depression, anxiety, sleep issues, and interference with social interactions and daily tasks, including eating (Demirci, Akgönül, & Akpinar, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref10">13</reflink>]; De‐Sola Gutiérrez, Rodríguez de Fonseca, & Rubio, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref11">14</reflink>]; Elliott, Golub, Ream, & Dunlap, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref12">18</reflink>]). Twenge, Joiner, Rogers, and Martin ([<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref13">50</reflink>]) warned that the sudden sharp decline in teens' self‐reported life satisfaction between 2010 and 2015 correlated with the steep increase of adolescent smartphone usage during the same years.</p> <p>In contrast, when Ito et al. ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref14">26</reflink>]) examined the smartphone habits of 800 adolescents, they found that much of the teens' smartphone usage was motivated by social needs and the desire to connect with friends. According to this study, smartphones did not interfere with these teenagers' social interactions, but became a tool to support communication. Ito et al. ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref15">26</reflink>]) also indicated that teenagers often engage in self‐directed learning through smartphones, and suggested that educators might consider adjusting teaching strategies to address the discrepancy between teenagers' lives outside of the classroom and instructional practices.</p> <p>To further complicate these incongruencies, shutdowns during the COVID‐19 pandemic elevated the role of technology, as digital devices became essential for both education and communication. The "good vs. bad" messages such as those noted above, particularly without training on appropriate uses of smartphones, creates confusion and frustration for young people who are trying to determine when, why, and even if they should use these mobile devices.</p> <p>Negative effects of adolescent smartphone use have been reported in relation to sleep (Schweizer, Berchtold, Barrense‐Dias, Akre, & Suris, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref16">45</reflink>]), social interactions (Graham, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref17">23</reflink>]), and general well‐being (Cyr, Berman, & Smith, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref18">11</reflink>]). In a systematic study that investigated adolescents' sleep quantity, sleep problems, and smartphone ownership (Schweizer et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref19">45</reflink>]), authors found significantly more sleep issues and deficits among those who owned smartphones than among those who did not. In like manner, a systematic review (MacCarthaigh, Griffin, & Perry, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref20">33</reflink>]) linked sleep issues with problematic smartphone usage. Even beyond the issues with physical needs such as sleep, Turkle ([<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref21">49</reflink>]) expresses concern that we have replaced social relationships and conversations with surface connections. Social relationships were also a concern in a qualitative study by Childs and Holland ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref22">6</reflink>]), and were reflected in a teenage participant's comment: "You do definitely see people sort of like isolated in their phone and they say social media is social but actually it narrows how social you are..." In general, well‐being has been significantly correlated with amount of time spent on smartphones, with increased time on devices linked with lower scores on self‐reported measures of well‐being (Kumcagiz & Gündüz, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref23">30</reflink>]).</p> <p>However, both Vuorre, Orben, and Przybylski ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref24">53</reflink>]) and George et al. ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref25">22</reflink>]) found little evidence that smartphone use may negatively impact adolescent well‐being. Because well‐being has been investigated frequently in relation to adolescent smartphone usage and is a component of this study, a brief overview of well‐being follows.</p> <hd id="AN0177193320-4">Dimensions of Well‐Being</hd> <p>Research into emotional stability has moved from a focus on psychopathologies such as anxiety and depression to a focus on well‐being (Lucas, Diener, & Suh, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref26">32</reflink>]), with measurements of well‐being focused on either observable, quantifiable (objective) factors or internal, self‐reported (subjective) factors (Huebner, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref27">24</reflink>]). Subjective aspects of well‐being include both an affective dimension and the cognitive dimensions of life satisfaction and self‐esteem (Lucas et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref28">32</reflink>]). Optimism is considered by some researchers to be a third cognitive dimension, but is not always included as a separate dimension because measures are comparable to those of self‐esteem (Scheier & Carver, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref29">44</reflink>]). Because of this, the current study assesses well‐being only through measures of life satisfaction, self‐esteem, and affect.</p> <p>Measures of life satisfaction assess a person's that his important needs, goals, and priorities are being attained (Huebner, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref30">24</reflink>]). Self‐esteem measures often align with those of life satisfaction, and assess a person's perspective of his own value (Fleming & Watts, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref31">20</reflink>], cited in Lucas et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref32">32</reflink>]). Studies of adolescents by Savin‐Williams and Demo ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref33">43</reflink>]) suggest that self‐esteem is an average of day‐to‐day assessments of self‐worth. Both life satisfaction and self‐esteem are considered to be relatively stable and affected little by external conditions (Diener, Suh, Lucas, & Smith, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref34">17</reflink>]; Rosenberg, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref35">41</reflink>]). The affective dimension, in contrast, measures day‐to‐day emotions that reflect either positive affect (e.g., happiness, peacefulness) or negative affect (e.g., loneliness, fear) (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref36">55</reflink>]). Social connectedness may be an important factor in affect (Baumeister & Leary, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref37">3</reflink>]), and affect is considered to be a primary marker of well‐being (Costa & McCrae, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref38">10</reflink>]; Watson & Clark, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref39">54</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0177193320-5">Theoretical Framework: Inquiry‐Based Learning</hd> <p>Inquiry is commonly seen as an active and constructive process in which reflection is an integral part (Dewey, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref40">16</reflink>]). Since the days of John Dewey ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref41">15</reflink>]), inquiry has been connected with learning and development of critical thinking skills. Inquiry‐based learning builds on natural human curiosity (National Research Council, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref42">37</reflink>]), allowing students to center their learning around their own questions and supporting motivation and positive attitudes toward learning (Bayram, Oskay, Erdem, Özgür, & Şen, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref43">4</reflink>]). In addition, participation in inquiry‐based learning activities can provide students with opportunities to practice the problem solving and communication skills that are needed to succeed in the 21st century (National Research Council, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref44">37</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0177193320-6">Guided Inquiry</hd> <p>One educational approach to inquiry, guided inquiry (GI), works to deepen student learning while building student skills for solving problems and finding meaning in information‐rich technological environments. Independent thinking, informed decision making, and lifelong learning are ultimate goals (Kuhlthau, Maniotes, & Caspari, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref45">29</reflink>]). In GI, students have opportunities to generate questions and solve ill‐structured problems, both of which are considered essential practices for developing critical thinking skills (The National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref46">36</reflink>], cited in Svihla & Reeve, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref47">47</reflink>]). Technology is central to information gathering during GI, and reflective questions help students sort through the vast quantities of information available online.</p> <p>The GI process creates a scaffolding to move participants from directed learners to independent researchers. After an engaging opening activity to spark interest, students have opportunities to connect with previous knowledge and to learn interesting or unusual information. As they begin to construct specific inquiries, they explore content and collect facts, usually within a team of peers, in an effort to refine the research question. Once the inquiry is established, students gather information, create and implement a project plan, share it with an audience, and evaluate their personal learning (Kuhlthau et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref48">29</reflink>]). Through independent learning activities such as these, students have opportunities not only to analyze the problem and the boundaries (McKenney & Reeves, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref49">35</reflink>], p. 85), but also to work with the community by developing practical projects in which they have created both the inquiry and the action plan (Savery & Duffy, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref50">42</reflink>]). Active participation in the learning process allows students to initiate their own learning and prepares them to undertake future challenges (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref51">5</reflink>], pp. 12–13). The autonomy and competence students gain as they take control over their own learning has been associated with positive affect and increased well‐being (Fotiadis, Abdulrahman, & Spyridou, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref52">21</reflink>]; Noble, Wyatt, McGrath, Roffey, & Rowling, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref53">38</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0177193320-7">Participatory Action Research (PAR)</hd> <p>Research in formal educational settings is by nature complex. Stakeholders, including teachers, administrators, parents, students, and board members, bring a variety of goals, interests, and needs to the school setting (Davis & Sumara, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref54">12</reflink>]). Student absences, curriculum expectations, and behavior issues add to the complexity. In these complex and dynamic environments, traditional data often results in inconsistent and inadequate results. For example, students who are absent may not be able to complete an intervention, impacting the reliability of the data. Gaps in the data may result when students are absent on data collection days, since gathering data later may not be possible (Cockerham, Lin, Ndolo, & Schwartz, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref55">9</reflink>]). Curriculum expectations, behavior issues, and student needs may take priority over research activities, and even the best‐designed research plans may need to be adjusted in such unpredictable learning settings (Cockerham, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref56">7</reflink>]).</p> <p>Educational research is further complicated by the fact that the researcher perspective and stakeholder perspective do not always align (van Atteveldt, Tijsma, Janssen, & Kupper, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref57">51</reflink>]). However, open dialogue between research and education can benefit educational practice (Ansari, Coch, & De Smedt, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref58">1</reflink>]). As neuroscientists and psychologists work to build a deeper understanding of the cognitive, biological, and mental processes underpinning the act of learning, they support educators in better addressing students' learning needs. Yet researchers also must listen to educational practitioners to learn how applying the empirically grounded concepts affects learning and what strategies may work best to support students' learning needs (Fischer, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref59">19</reflink>]). Clear researcher‐practitioner dialogue and collaborations are essential for education that supports the cognitive, physical, and social needs of students.</p> <p>PAR can provide a flexible, effective approach to educational research (Cockerham, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref60">8</reflink>]). In PAR research, participants and researchers work together to investigate and provide solutions to school, workforce, and other community issues. The perspectives of participants in the community, who serve as co‐researchers, can provide insights that researchers alone might not notice (Tracy et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref61">48</reflink>]). As community members assume leadership roles, they develop the confidence and understanding to take action on future issues (McIntyre, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref62">34</reflink>]).</p> <p>A dual emphasis on research and education is integral to both PAR and GI approaches. With these common goals, the approaches can provide complimentary opportunities to work with and benefit the community through developing and implementing practical, relevant projects (Savery & Duffy, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref63">42</reflink>]).</p> <p>The current study combines a GI educational approach with PAR. The focus of the GI/PAR intervention is on increasing adolescent awareness and understanding of smartphone usage while supporting positive well‐being. The main questions asked are:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> After participating as co‐researchers in a GI/PAR investigation of digital responsibility, to what extent do student researchers show changes in their sense of well‐being?</item> <p></p> <item> After participating as co‐researchers in a GI/PAR investigation of digital responsibility, to what extent do student researchers show changes in their awareness of their own smartphone usage?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0177193320-8">METHODS</hd> <p>This study was approved and conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the university's Institutional Review Board and the ethics laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments. All participants and their parents/guardians provided written consent prior to their inclusion in the study.</p> <p>For the purposes of this manuscript, the following terms will be used:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Participants—Adolescent students who signed consent forms and participated in the research study.</item> <p></p> <item> Researchers—The university team who designed and initiated the study.</item> <p></p> <item> Co‐researchers—Interchangeable with "participants". Every participant conducted a research study and thus became a co‐researcher. The term "co‐researchers" distinguishes the adolescent researchers from the university research team.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0177193320-9">Participants</hd> <p>The study took place on two middle school campuses. A total of 25 middle school students (10 F, 15 M, age 11–16, <emph>M</emph> = 13.44, <emph>SD</emph> = 1.07) served as participants/co‐researchers.</p> <hd id="AN0177193320-10">Study Design</hd> <p>After participants and their parents/guardians signed consent forms, preintervention data was collected. Participants were then immersed in a nine‐week GI/PAR curriculum focused on digital responsibility and smartphone awareness.</p> <hd id="AN0177193320-11">Intervention</hd> <p>Before the school semester began, teachers were trained on the sequential steps in the GI/PAR approach, which are designed to move participants from guided students to independent learners (Kuhlthau et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref64">29</reflink>]). Participants were engaged in GI/PAR training for approximately 3 h per week for a nine‐week period, with the session length and number of sessions adapted to the school's existing class schedule and time framework.</p> <p>For the first half of the intervention, class sessions began with a thought‐provoking activity to inspire interest and curiosity about digital smartphones. Engaging activities focused on digital use and issues, awareness, and communication through relevant games, content‐related case studies, role play, secret codes, puzzles, and short videos.</p> <p>Participants next connected with previous knowledge, explored interesting or unusual information, and examined resources that spurred critical analysis and a better understanding of smartphones. Resources such as websites and videoclips were followed by critical thinking activities, including reflective journaling and/or discussion.</p> <p>As participants moved towards independent research, they determined and refined potential research questions and searched related literature and resources. They worked in groups of two to four to design and prepare simple research studies based on their online research and understanding. Research questions focused on adult and teen interpretation and usage of smartphones, and ranged from "Can you tell real news from fake news?" to "How well do smartphone users interpret emojis?" to "Are we more productive when we multitask?"</p> <p>The studies were conducted with adult and teen museum attendees at a large local museum. Selected studies are pictured in Figure 1. In the final phase, co‐researchers analyzed and evaluated their results and reflected upon the experience.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/309X/01may24/mbe12405-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="mbe12405-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 Selected project presentations at the museum." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0177193320-13">Final Steps</hd> <p>To conclude the research study, post‐intervention data was collected through surveys and interviews.</p> <hd id="AN0177193320-14">Materials</hd> <p>Data was collected through pre‐intervention and post‐intervention surveys, observations, and student feedback comments. To address the first research question, instruments assessed both cognitive and affective aspects of subjective well‐being.</p> <p>Life satisfaction, a cognitive component, was measured through the Brief Multidimensional Students' Life Satisfaction Scale (BMSLSS; Seligson, Huebner, & Valois, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref65">46</reflink>]). This self‐reported scale measures life satisfaction in five domains: family, friends, school, self, and living environment. A final question assesses general life satisfaction. The six‐question BMSLSS was designed specifically for youth and was adapted from the longer Multidimensional Students' Life Satisfaction Scale (MSLSS). The brief version was designed for use in longitudinal studies and other studies that need fewer survey items (Robins, Hendin, & Trzesniewski, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref66">39</reflink>]). Questions are worded similarly: "I would describe my satisfaction with my {family life, friendships, school environment, living environment, myself} as..." A final question asks about satisfaction with "life as a whole". Participants respond by selecting a value of 1 (strongly disagree) through 5 (strongly agree), with higher scores signifying stronger life satisfaction. The mean of the five domains (six questions) provides an overall life satisfaction score.</p> <p>A second cognitive component, self‐esteem, was measured through the Rosenberg Self‐Esteem Scale (RSES; Rosenberg, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref67">40</reflink>]), which consists of six items and was created specifically to assess self‐esteem in adolescents. This survey is scored on a 5‐point Likert scale, with some questions receiving high scores to signify strong self‐esteem (e.g., "I feel that I have a number of good qualities") and other questions receiving low scores to indicate strong self‐esteem (e.g., "I feel that I do not have much to be proud of"). Responses for questions in which low scores indicate strong self‐esteem are reverse coded, and scores from all questions are totaled to give an overall self‐esteem score. The unidimensional measure shows a high internal consistency on the Guttman scale (C<subs>R</subs> = .92).</p> <p>The affective realm of well‐being was measured through the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule for Children (PANAS‐C; Laurent et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref68">31</reflink>]). The affective terminology included in this assessment was selected to keep vocabulary clear for youth. For this scale, participants use a 5‐point Likert scale to rate the frequency in which they experience each of 27 positive and negative emotions. Higher scores indicate increased frequency. Scores for positive emotions (e.g., strong, joyful, energetic) are totaled to provide a positive affect score, and scores for negative emotions (e.g., miserable, jittery, afraid) yield a negative affect score. A negative correlation between the positive and negative affect scales (<emph>r</emph> = −.25) and a correlation of −.36 in factor analyses supported strong distinctions between the two components of the survey.</p> <p>To address the second research question, awareness of personal smartphone usage, two measures were gathered. First, the total smartphone usage time and amount of time on most used apps for each participant was collected weekly through the Screentime app (https://screentimelabs.com/mission/). Second, participants responded to both quantitative and qualitative questions on the Smartphone Use Introspection Scale (SUIS; Basceanu, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref69">2</reflink>]) to reveal insights into their understandings of their personal smartphone usage patterns, including estimated daily minutes of personal smartphone usage. For both pre‐intervention and post‐intervention data, awareness of smartphone usage was determined through paired sample <emph>t</emph>‐tests comparing actual smartphone usage time with estimated usage time. Students used their own smartphones throughout the study to provide a natural environment for viewing smartphone usage.</p> <p>Participant and teacher observations provided additional information.</p> <hd id="AN0177193320-15">RESULTS</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0177193320-16">Well‐Being</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0177193320-17">Affect</hd> <p>To analyze changes in affect, data from PANAS‐C survey items investigating positive affect were separated from items measuring negative affect, creating a positive affect (PANAS‐PA) score and a negative affect (PANAS‐NA) score.</p> <p>Paired sample <emph>t</emph>‐tests indicated a significant difference between scores on the PANAS‐PA pretest (<emph>M</emph> = 36.68, <emph>SD</emph> = 9.70) and posttest scores (<emph>M</emph> = 43.24, <emph>SD</emph> = 11.85), [<emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref70">24</reflink>) = −.16, (<emph>p</emph> = .004)]. PANAS‐PA posttest scores were significantly higher when compared to pre‐intervention scores (see Table 1). Cohen's <emph>d</emph> (.63) indicates a medium difference between scores.</p> <p>1 Table Paired t ‐Tests Comparing Pre and Post‐Intervention Measures</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left" /><th align="center">Mean</th><th align="center"><italic>N</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>SD</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>SE</italic> Mean</th><th align="center">Two‐Sided <italic>p</italic></th><th align="center">Cohen's <italic>d</italic></th><th align="center">95% Lower Conf. Int</th><th align="center">95% Upper Conf. Int</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left" valign="top">PANAS‐PA</td><td align="left">Pre</td><td>36.68</td><td>25</td><td> 9.70</td><td> 1.94</td><td>.004</td><td>.63</td><td>−10.85</td><td>−2.27</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Post</td><td>43.24</td><td>25</td><td>11.85</td><td> 2.37</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top">PANAS‐NA</td><td align="left">Pre</td><td>30.84</td><td>25</td><td> 9.81</td><td> 1.96</td><td>.086</td><td>.36</td><td>  −.67</td><td> 9.39</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Post</td><td>26.48</td><td>25</td><td> 8.07</td><td> 1.61</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top">BMSLSS</td><td align="left">Pre</td><td> 2.45</td><td>24</td><td>  .92</td><td>  .19</td><td>1.00</td><td>0</td><td>  −.41</td><td>  .41</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Post</td><td> 2.45</td><td>24</td><td>  .85</td><td>  .17</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top">RSES</td><td align="left">Pre</td><td>13.08</td><td>24</td><td> 4.25</td><td>  .87</td><td>.186</td><td>.28</td><td>  −.41</td><td> 1.20</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Post</td><td>12.29</td><td>24</td><td> 4.20</td><td>  .857</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td /><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Note</emph>: Cohen's <emph>d</emph>,.2 small,.5 medium,.8 large.</p> <p>When comparing the differences between the PANAS‐NA pretest (<emph>M</emph> = 30.84, <emph>SD</emph> = 9.81) and posttest (<emph>M</emph> = 26.48, <emph>SD</emph> = 8.07), no significant difference was found [<emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref71">24</reflink>) = 1.79, (<emph>p</emph> = .086)]. Cohen's <emph>d</emph> (.36) indicates a small effect size.</p> <hd id="AN0177193320-18">Life Satisfaction and Self‐Esteem</hd> <p>The BMSLSS pretest (<emph>M</emph> = 2.45, <emph>SD</emph> = .92) and posttest (<emph>M</emph> = 2.45, <emph>SD</emph> = .85) intervention scores registered no significant change [<emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref72">23</reflink>) = 0, (<emph>p</emph> = 1.00)]. Cohen's <emph>d</emph> indicated no effect size (0.00). Likewise, when the RSES pretest (<emph>M</emph> = 13.08, <emph>SD</emph> = 4.25) and posttest (<emph>M</emph> = 12.29, <emph>SD</emph> = 4.196) intervention scores were compared, no significant difference was noted between scores [<emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref73">23</reflink>) = 1.37, (<emph>p</emph> = .186)]. Cohen's <emph>d</emph>.28 indicates a small effect size.</p> <hd id="AN0177193320-19">Awareness of Smartphone Usage</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0177193320-20">Actual Smartphone Usage Time</hd> <p>Paired sample <emph>t</emph>‐tests showed a significant decrease in actual smartphone usage from pre‐intervention (<emph>M</emph> = 229.17, <emph>SD</emph> = 161.01) to post‐intervention (<emph>M</emph> = 166.17, <emph>SD</emph> = 109.48), <emph>p</emph> = .026.</p> <hd id="AN0177193320-21">Estimated Smartphone Usage Time</hd> <p>Each participant estimated the total amount of time that they use their smartphone daily. Responses were converted into minutes for comparison purposes. Pre‐intervention estimations (perceptions) of usage time ranged from 10 to 720 min daily (<emph>M</emph> = 192.08, <emph>SD</emph> = 144.06). Post‐intervention estimations (perceptions) of usage time ranged from 15 to 420 min daily (<emph>M</emph> = 111.75, <emph>SD</emph> = 81.60).</p> <hd id="AN0177193320-22">Actual Vs. Estimated Smartphone Usage Time</hd> <p>Awareness of smartphone usage time was assessed through paired samples <emph>t</emph>‐tests comparing estimated usage times with actual usage times. Pre‐intervention results show a significant difference in participant estimation of minutes compared to actual minutes, with participants underestimating their usage (<emph>M</emph> = 144.06, <emph>SD</emph> = 192.08) as compared to actual usage (<emph>M</emph> = 239.38, <emph>SD</emph> = 168.04). Non‐parametric testing using Wilcoxon‐Signed Rank tests indicates that this is a statistically significant difference, <emph>p</emph> < .05. In the post‐intervention condition, participants' estimation of minutes (<emph>M</emph> = 111.75, <emph>SD</emph> = 81.60), when compared with actual minutes used (<emph>M</emph> = 147.65, <emph>SD</emph> = 103.43), show no significant differences.</p> <hd id="AN0177193320-23">DISCUSSION</hd> <p>This study considers how a GI/PAR curriculum in which participants worked as co‐researchers to investigate smartphone usage impacted participant well‐being and personal awareness of smartphone usage. Findings are centered in the two areas of investigation: adolescent well‐being and smartphone awareness.</p> <hd id="AN0177193320-24">Well‐Being</hd> <p>Well‐being among participants showed significant changes in the affective domain from pre‐intervention to post‐intervention. Positive affect, expressed in emotions such as confidence, pride, and excitement, significantly increased among participating students. In like manner, negative affect, experienced in emotions such as apathy, worry, and boredom, significantly decreased among participants. Although positive and negative affect are not always orthogonally related (Lucas et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref74">32</reflink>]), the current changes in positive affect and negative affect may have been related to similar factors.</p> <p>First, affects may have been impacted by the agency students experienced as they set their own research goals, designed and prepared the studies, and conducted the research with museum guests. As Fotiadis et al. ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref75">21</reflink>]) suggests, student autonomy and competence that results from active, student‐initiated learning can underscore student well‐being. A GI approach in which students actively lead their own learning supports the growth of student agency and initiative, as seen in Kuhlthau et al. ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref76">29</reflink>]). Active learning and agency in this study may have underscored the increase in positive affect, decrease in negative affect, and overall well‐being, as aligned with the work of Noble et al. ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref77">38</reflink>]).</p> <p>In addition, as participants worked in teams to create and implement projects, social interactions among team members may have boosted positive affect. Working with others towards a common goal has been shown to foster a sense of belonging and social connectedness, which has been associated with positive affect (Baumeister & Leary, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref78">3</reflink>]). The opportunities to connect socially may have supported self‐efficacy and fostered motivation, leading to additional agency and self‐directed learning skills, as indicated by Ito et al. ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref79">26</reflink>]).</p> <p>Furthermore, in determining topics of research focus, participants selected personally meaningful inquiries. The relevance of the inquiries, combined with opportunities to implement the study with adult and teen guests at a museum, may have fostered positive affect and dispelled fear among participants as their confidence and motivation increased. This aligns with research noting the impact of relevance upon motivation (Kuhlthau et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref80">29</reflink>]) leading to positive affect.</p> <p>It is important to remember that the GI/PAR intervention only took place for 3 h per week, so other factors (family conditions, social interactions, schoolwork, etc.) could also have influenced the changes in either positive or negative affect. Students move through a dynamic network of people, situations, and environments, and any of these could have impacted the changes.</p> <p>In contrast to changes in affect, both life satisfaction and self‐esteem scores remained relatively stable. The consistency in life satisfaction scores over time aligns with the findings of Diener et al. ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref81">17</reflink>]), who note that life satisfaction scores tend to remain relatively stable throughout life. The similar findings also align with theories suggesting that affect is a primary marker of well‐being (Costa & McCrae, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref82">10</reflink>]; Watson & Clark, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref83">54</reflink>]).</p> <p>Although measures of life satisfaction are specific for friends, family, and life environments, measures of self‐esteem are more global in nature (Rosenberg, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref84">41</reflink>]). The alignment between life satisfaction and self‐esteem scores reflects the parallelism seen between life satisfaction and self‐esteem (Lucas et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref85">32</reflink>]). The consistency in the adolescents' self‐esteem scores is well‐aligned with studies of adolescents conducted by Savin‐Williams and Demo ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref86">43</reflink>]), who concluded that self‐esteem scores may be an average of a person's day‐to‐day assessment of self‐worth.</p> <hd id="AN0177193320-25">Smartphone Awareness</hd> <p>The study also investigated student changes in smartphone awareness. Participants estimated their daily totals of smartphone usage on both pre‐intervention and post‐intervention measures. The estimates were compared with weekly usage data from the students' smartphones that showed minutes of actual smartphone usage. At pre‐intervention, significant differences were seen between the participants' estimated vs. actual usage times, indicating that participants were using their smartphones much more than they thought. However, at post‐intervention, no significant differences were seen between the two measures. The improved accuracy in estimation measures, combined with participant comments such as "I check it [my usage] all the time. I think about it a lot. I'm more aware of it now than I was before the class", suggests that participants increased awareness of their own smartphone usage during the intervention.</p> <p>Increased awareness may have been related to reflective activities such as a "smartphone inventory" in which participants recorded their usage time, purpose, and emotions. This and other activities guided students to build a personal understanding of digital responsibility and to self‐assess regularly. A surprising finding was participants' awareness of the personal need for structure and scaffolded support in developing independent learning and self‐monitoring skills. As one participant commented, "I think it would be good for me [if I lost my smartphone]. Because one time the teacher took away my phone, and then I was able to stop using it. I'd have more balance in my life if I lost it." Such self‐analysis and the resultant growth of critical thinking skills has been associated with a GI approach (Kuhlthau et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref87">29</reflink>]).</p> <p>In addition to increased awareness of smartphone usage, teachers observed growth in self‐awareness and confidence and noted that "....this was a great opportunity to improve their [participants'] communication skills." Teachers valued the instructional approach and commented, "In this class, I get to listen to the students and learn from them." One school arranged for participants to present their research to the entire student body, which not only motivated the students to carefully analyze and interpret the data, but also furthered growth in communication skills. The other school chose to repeat the GI/PAR opportunity with additional classes so that more students could benefit.</p> <hd id="AN0177193320-26">Limitations and Future Directions</hd> <p>Several limitations were seen in this study. First, the small sample size could have impacted results. If the intervention was repeated with a larger sample size, results might be different, particularly on the PANAS‐NA variable.</p> <p>Second, although implementing the study with active school classes provided opportunities to test the approach in working school environments, it also meant adapting to the school's procedures and needs. Day‐to‐day issues such as student absences, school‐related events, and standardized testing impacted the data collection and required a flexible approach to implementation. An additional limitation may have been the lack of uniformity among smartphones. While allowing participants to use their personal devices likely generated more authentic data, variations in the types of smartphones may have limited the consistency between participants.</p> <p>In addition, the smartphone usage data that was gathered weekly through Screentime focused on minutes used and most used apps. However, the weekly data had gaps, primarily due to student absences and frequent issues with smartphones. Further, the extensive amount of data gathered would warrant a separate analysis and write‐up. Because of this, we compared only the pre‐intervention and post‐intervention total of minutes used for the current study. Assessing consistent week‐by‐week usage for individual participants could enrich understanding of smartphone usage.</p> <p>Finally, this study was conducted in the southwest United States. Because smartphone usage may differ in other locations, results may vary if conducted in a different area of the country or world.</p> <p>Future studies could analyze data by school. For the current study, one school did not allow smartphones in class, while the other school encouraged smartphone use throughout the school day. Outcomes between schools could be compared to provide insights into effects of the GI/PAR curriculum upon schools with differing smartphone usage policies. Qualitative studies could deepen insights into student motivation, initiative, and critical thinking as participants design and investigate their own research studies. In addition, a similar research/educational approach should be implemented and investigated with a larger sample size.</p> <hd id="AN0177193320-27">CONCLUSION</hd> <p>Although the goal of GI is to educate students, projects that are developed through this instructional method may extend the focus beyond basic education and into the research realm. In reverse manner, PAR focuses primarily on research, but its goal of positive community change often results in learning and education. In the current study, growth was seen as adolescents who began as guided students learned the research process through designing and conducting personally relevant research studies. Student leadership in developing and investigating questions about devices that they use daily created a balance between classroom activities and student life beyond the classroom, supporting the self‐directed learning noted by Ito et al. ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref88">26</reflink>]). As students gained independence and took control of their own learning, they were motivated to continue learning and acquired self‐confidence, an element of positive affect that manifests in increased well‐being (Fotiadis et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref89">21</reflink>]; Noble et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref90">38</reflink>]).</p> <p>Additionally, our findings build on the work of Ansari et al. ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref91">1</reflink>]), who suggests that open dialogue between researchers and educators can support student learning. In the current study, embedding a community‐focused research approach (e.g., PAR) into a student‐centered instructional strategy (e.g., GI) not only increased participant well‐being, but also helped students better understand their own relationships and personal interactions with smartphones. Adolescent comments such as "I check it [my smartphone usage] all the time. I think about it a lot" and "I'm more aware of it [my usage] now" provided insights that, as Tracy et al. ([<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref92">48</reflink>]) suggests, university researchers alone might not have discerned. The confidence and understanding that students gained as they assumed research leadership roles established the foundational skills to initiate future learning, in line with Bransford et al. ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref93">5</reflink>], pp. 12–13).</p> <p>In today's connected world, adolescent use of smartphones is a reality of everyday life. Research/educational approaches that encourage students to understand smartphone uses and digital impacts by investigating personally meaningful questions can strengthen personal awareness and well‐being. As students develop both confidence and a fuller understanding of smartphone use, opportunities, dangers, and impacts, they are empowered to step forward as responsible leaders both now and in the digital world of the future.</p> <hd id="AN0177193320-28">CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT</hd> <p>The authors declare that we have no conflict of interest. Complete data are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.</p> <hd id="AN0177193320-29">ETHICS STATEMENT</hd> <p>This study has been approved and conducted in accordance with the ethics of the University of North Texas Institutional Review Board.</p> <ref id="AN0177193320-30"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Ansari, D., Coch, D., & De Smedt, B. (2011). Connecting education and cognitive neuroscience: Where will the journey take us? Educational Philosophy and Theory, 43 (1), 37 – 42.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref2" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Basceanu, D. (2017). Connectivity issues: Filling the gaps of human relatedness with smartphones (master's thesis). Maastrich University, Maastrich, The Netherlands.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref37" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117 (3), 497 – 529.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref43" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Bayram, Z., Oskay, Ö. Ö., Erdem, E., Özgür, S. D., & Şen, Ş. (2013). Effect of inquiry based learning method on students' motivation. Procedia‐Social and Behavioral Sciences, 106, 988 – 996.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref51" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000) How people learn. (Vol. 11). Washington, DC : National Academy Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref22" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Childs, C., & Holland, F. (2022). Young peoples' lived experiences of shifts between face‐to‐face and smartphone interactions: An interpretative phenomenological analysis. Journal of Youth Studies, 271, 57–72.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref56" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Cockerham, D. (2019) The impact of an inquiry‐based learning curriculum upon digital awareness and well‐being among adolescents with learning and attentional disabilities. Doctoral dissertation. Denton, TX : University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library. https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc1609162/m1/1/?q=Cockerham%2C%202019</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref8" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Cockerham, D. (2023). Participatory action research: Building understanding, dialogue, and positive actions in a changing digital environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 1‐29, 1 – 29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423‐023‐10294‐1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref55" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Cockerham, D., Lin, L., Ndolo, S., & Schwartz, M. (2021). Voices of the students: Adolescent well‐ being and social interactions during the emergent shift to online learning environments. Education and Information Technologies, 26, 7523 – 7541. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639‐021‐10601‐4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1980). Influence of extraversion and neuroticism on subjective well‐being: Happy and unhappy people. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38 (4), 668 – 678.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cyr, B. A., Berman, S. L., & Smith, M. L. (2015). The role of communication technology in adolescent relationships and identity development. In Child & Youth Care Forum. (Vol. 44, pp. 79 – 92). New York, NY : Springer US.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Davis, B., & Sumara, D. (2010). 'If things were simple...': Complexity in education. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 16 (4), 856 – 860.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Demirci, K., Akgönül, M., & Akpinar, A. (2015). Relationship of smartphone use severity with sleep quality, depression, and anxiety in university students. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 4 (2), 85 – 92.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> De‐Sola Gutiérrez, J., Rodríguez de Fonseca, F., & Rubio, G. (2016). Cell‐phone addiction: A review. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 7, 175. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2016.00175</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dewey, J. (1916) Education and democracy. New York : The Free Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dewey, J. (1933) How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educational process. (Vol. 35, pp. 690 – 698). Lexington, MA : Heath.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well‐being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125 (2), 276 – 302.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Elliott, L., Golub, A., Ream, G., & Dunlap, E. (2012). Video game genre as a predictor of problem use. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15 (3), 155 – 161.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fischer, K. W. (2009). Mind, brain, and education: Building a scientific groundwork for learning and teaching. Mind, Brain, and Education, 3 (1), 3 – 16.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fleming, J. S., & Watts, W. A. (1980). The dimensionality of self‐esteem: Some results of a college sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39 (5), 921 – 929.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fotiadis, A., Abdulrahman, K., & Spyridou, A. (2019). The mediating roles of psychological autonomy, competence and relatedness on work‐life balance and well‐being. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1267.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> George, M. J., Jensen, M. R., Russell, M. A., Gassman‐Pines, A., Copeland, W. E., Hoyle, R. H., & Odgers, C. L. (2020). Young adolescents' digital technology use, perceived impairments, and well‐being in a representative sample. The Journal of Pediatrics, 219, 180 – 187.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Graham, J. B. (2013). Impacts of text messaging on adolescents' communication skills: School social workers' perceptions. Sophia, the St. Catherine University repository website. https://sophia.stkate.edu/msw_papers/184</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Huebner, E. S. (2004). Research on assessment of life satisfaction of children and adolescents. Social Indicators Research, 66 (1–2), 3 – 33.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). 2023.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ito, M., Bittanti, M., Horst, H. A., Stephenson, B. H., Lange, P. G., Pascoe, C. J., & Robinson, L. (2009) Living and learning with new media: Summary of findings from the digital youth project. Cambridge, MA : MIT Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jacquez, F., Vaughn, L., Deters, A., Wells, J., & Maynard, K. (2020). Creating a culture of youth as co‐researchers: The kickoff of a year‐long stem pipeline program. Journal of STEM Outreach, 3 (1), 1–20.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> James, C., Weinstein, E., & Mendoza, K. (2019) Teaching digital citizens in today's world: Research and insights behind the common sense K–12 digital citizenship curriculum. San Francisco, CA : Common Sense Media.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kuhlthau, C. C., Maniotes, L. K., & Caspari, A. K. (2015) Guided inquiry: Learning in the 21st century. Westport, Co : Libraries Unlimited.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kumcagiz, H., & Gündüz, Y. (2016). Relationship between psychological well‐being and smartphone addiction of university students. International Journal of Higher Education, 5 (4), 144 – 156.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Laurent, J., Catanzaro, S. J., Joiner, T. E., Rudolph, K. D., Potter, K. I., Lambert, S., ... Gathright, T. (1999). A measure of positive and negative affect for children: Scale development and preliminary validation. Psychological Assessment, 11 (3), 326 – 338.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lucas, R. E., Diener, E., & Suh, E. (1996). Discriminant validity of well‐being measures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71 (3), 616 – 628.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> MacCarthaigh, S., Griffin, C., & Perry, J. (2020). The relationship between sleep and problematic smartphone use among adolescents: A systematic review. Developmental Review, 55, 100897.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McIntyre, A. (2007) Participatory action research. New York, NY : Sage Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. C. (2012) Conducting educational design research. London : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers (2010) Common core standards for mathematics. Washington, DC : Authors.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Research Council (2000) Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, D.C. : National Academies Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Noble, T., Wyatt, T., McGrath, H., Roffey, S., & Rowling, L. (2008). Scoping study into approaches to student wellbeing. In Report to the Department of Education, employment and workplace relations. (pp. 32 – 43). Brisbane, Australia : Australian Catholic University and Erebus International.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Robins, R. W., Hendin, H. M., & Trzesniewski, K. H. (2001). Measuring global self‐esteem: Construct validation of a single‐item measure and the Rosenberg self‐esteem scale. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27 (2), 151 – 161.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rosenberg, M. (1979) Conceiving the self. New York : Basic Books.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rosenberg, M. (1986). Self‐concept from middle childhood through adolescence. In J. Suls, & A. G. Greenwald (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on the self. (Vol. 3, pp. 107 – 135). Hillsdale, NJ : Erlbaum.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Savery, J. R., & Duffy, T. M. (1995). Problem based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework. Educational Technology, 35 (5), 31 – 38.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Savin‐Williams, R. G., & Demo, P. (1983). Situational and transitional determinants of adolescent self‐feelings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 820 – 833.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1992). Effects of optimism on psychological and physical well‐being: Theoretical overview and empirical update. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 16 (2), 201 – 228.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schweizer, A., Berchtold, A., Barrense‐Dias, Y., Akre, C., & Suris, J. C. (2017). Adolescents with a smartphone sleep less than their peers. European Journal of Pediatrics, 176, 131 – 136.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Seligson, J. L., Huebner, E. S., & Valois, R. F. (2003). Preliminary validation of the brief multidimensional students' life satisfaction scale (BMSLSS). Social Indicators Research, 61 (2), 121 – 145.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Svihla, V., & Reeve, R. (2016). Facilitating problem framing in project‐based learning. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem‐Based Learning, 10 (2), 19 – 36.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tracy, N. R., Sieber, T., Phillips, A., Leondar‐Wright, B., Alatorre, L. M., Ali, B. M., ... Underriner, J. (2020) Collaborating for change: A participatory action research casebook. New Brunswick, NJ : Rutgers University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Turkle, S. (2016) Reclaiming conversation: The power of talk in a digital age. New York, NY : Penguin.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Twenge, J. M., Joiner, T. E., Rogers, M. L., & Martin, G. N. (2018). Increases in depressive symptoms, suicide‐related outcomes, and suicide rates among U.S. adolescents after 2010 and links to increased new media screen time. Clinical Psychological Science, 6, 3 – 17. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167702617723376</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> van Atteveldt, N., Tijsma, G., Janssen, T., & Kupper, F. (2019). Responsible research and innovation as a novel approach to guide educational impact of mind, brain, and education research. Mind, Brain, and Education, 13, 279 – 287. https://doi.org/10.1111/mbe.12213</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vogels, E. A., Gelles‐Watnick, R., & Massarat, N. (2022) Teens, social media and smartphone 2022. Washington, D.C. : In Pew Research Center. https://<ulink href="http://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2022/08/10/teens‐social‐media‐and‐smartphone‐2022/">www.pewresearch.org/internet/2022/08/10/teens‐social‐media‐and‐smartphone‐2022/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vuorre, M., Orben, A., & Przybylski, A. K. (2021). There is no evidence that associations between adolescents' digital smartphone engagement and mental health problems have increased. Clinical Psychological Science, 9 (5), 823 – 835.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1984). Negative affectivity: The disposition to experience aversive emotional states. Psychological Bulletin, 96 (3), 465 – 490.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54 (6), 1063 – 1070.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Deborah Cockerham; Tandra Tyler‐Wood and Lin Lin</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref68"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1424271
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: An Inquiry-Based Approach to Understanding Well-Being and Smartphone Usage: Constructing Research with Adolescent Students
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Deborah+Cockerham%22">Deborah Cockerham</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5357-154X">0000-0002-5357-154X</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Tandra+Tyler-Wood%22">Tandra Tyler-Wood</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Lin+Lin%22">Lin Lin</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Mind%2C+Brain%2C+and+Education%22"><i>Mind, Brain, and Education</i></searchLink>. 2024 18(2):200-209.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 10
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Handheld+Devices%22">Handheld Devices</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Telecommunications%22">Telecommunications</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Adolescents%22">Adolescents</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Inquiry%22">Inquiry</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Critical+Thinking%22">Critical Thinking</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Personal+Autonomy%22">Personal Autonomy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Scientific+Research%22">Scientific Research</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Research%22">Student Research</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Museums%22">Museums</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Well+Being%22">Well Being</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Psychological+Patterns%22">Psychological Patterns</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Positive+Attitudes%22">Positive Attitudes</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1111/mbe.12405
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1751-2271<br />1751-228X
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Inquiry can be an effective educational strategy for building critical thinking and student agency, but it is also a catalyst for scientific research. This study built upon a foundation of inquiry as 25 adolescents participated in a nine-week guided inquiry curriculum focused on smartphones and digital responsibility. As participants developed personally meaningful inquiries and designed investigations into smartphone usage, they became co-researchers who conducted their own research studies at a large museum. The study examines to what extent participants show changes in their (1) sense of well-being; (2) awareness of personal smartphone usage. Pre- and post-intervention data compared participants' personal awareness of smartphone usage and investigated participants' well-being. Results showed significant increases in positive affect and smartphone awareness, with significant decreases in negative affect. This study provides important insights for teachers and researchers by highlighting the positive educational impacts of two-way dialogue between research and education.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1424271
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1424271
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/mbe.12405
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 10
        StartPage: 200
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Handheld Devices
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Telecommunications
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Adolescents
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Inquiry
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Critical Thinking
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Personal Autonomy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Scientific Research
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Research
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Museums
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Well Being
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Psychological Patterns
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Positive Attitudes
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: An Inquiry-Based Approach to Understanding Well-Being and Smartphone Usage: Constructing Research with Adolescent Students
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Deborah Cockerham
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Tandra Tyler-Wood
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Lin Lin
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 05
              Type: published
              Y: 2024
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1751-2271
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1751-228X
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 18
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Mind, Brain, and Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1