Ze onderzochten of mensen ‘wandelfouten’ maken als mensen aan het bellen zijn of tekstberichtjes versturen. Eerst en vooral gaan mensen trager stappen als ze bellen of sms-en. Vooral het sms-en blijkt er voor te zorgen dat je meer afgeleid bent en dat je bijvoorbeeld de verkeerde kant opgaat.

Abstract van het onderzoek (betalend):

Cell phone use among pedestrians leads to increased cognitive distraction, reduced situation awareness and increases in unsafe behavior. Performing a dual-task, such as talking or texting with a cell phone while walking, may interfere with working memory and result in walking errors. At baseline, thirty-three participants visually located a target 8m ahead; then vision was occluded and they were instructed to walk to the remembered target. One week later participants were assigned to either walk, walk while talking on a cell phone, or walk while texting on a cell phone toward the target with vision occluded. Duration and final location of the heel were noted. Linear distance traveled, lateral angular deviation from the start line, and gait velocity were derived. Changes from baseline to testing were analyzed with paired t-tests. Participants engaged in cell phone use presented with significant reductions in gait velocity (texting: 33% reduction, p=0.01; talking: 16% reduction, p=0.02). Moreover, participants who were texting while walking demonstrated a 61% increase in lateral deviation (p=0.04) and 13% increase in linear distance traveled (p=0.03). These results suggest that the dual-task of walking while using a cell phone impacts executive function and working memory and influences gait to such a degree that it may compromise safety. Importantly, comparison of the two cell phone conditions demonstrates texting creates a significantly greater interference effect on walking than talking on a cell phone.

Abstract van het onderzoek dat je hier kan downloaden:

Purpose
Adolescence is a time of significant developmental change. During this period, levels of problem behavior that had been relatively innocuous may escalate in the company of peers, with simultaneous reductions in parental monitoring and involvement. In this article, we report the results of a randomized controlled trial of the Family Check-Up (FCU), a family-centered, school-based intervention designed to forestall the escalation of adolescent problem behavior by promoting and motivating skillful parenting through the transition to high school.
Methods
In this study, 593 ethnically diverse families were randomized to be offered the FCU when their youth were in seventh and eighth grades of middle school. We used complier average causal effect analysis to examine change in family conflict, antisocial behavior, involvement with deviant peers, and alcohol use from sixth through ninth grades.
Results
Analyses revealed that when compared with a matched control group, youths whose parents had engaged in the FCU demonstrated significantly lower rates of growth in family conflict (p = .052), antisocial behavior, involvement with deviant peers, and alcohol use.
Discussion
Our results extend current research on the FCU and provide support for theory that links family conflict with a variety of youth problem behavior. These results and the extant research on the FCU suggest that traditional school-based service delivery models that focus on the individual child may benefit from a shift in perspective to engage parents and families.

Het artikel in Wired is zeer fijne lectuur op zondag dat leest als een echte jongensverhaal. Veel leesplezier!

(bron)

Rank . Country . . . . . Population . . Subs . Sm’phones . Migr.Rt . . Per Capita

1 . . . . Singapore . . . . . . . . . 4.9 . . . 8.1 . . . 4.4 . . . . 54% . . . . 90%
2 . . . . Hong Kong *** . . . . . 8.0 . . . 14.0 . . . 4.9 . . . . 35% . . . . 61%
3 . . . . Sweden . . . . . . . . . . 9.3 . . . 13.6 . . . 4.8 . . . . 35% . . . . 52%
4 . . . . Australia . . . . . . . . . 21.6 . . . 29.8 . . . 10.2 . . . . 34% . . . . 47%
5 . . . . Spain . . . . . . . . . . . 45.5 . . . 58.9 . . . 20.8 . . . . 35% . . . . 46%
tie 6 . . Denmark * . . . . . . . 5.5 . . . 7.6 . . . 2.4 . . . . 32% . . . . 44%
tie 6 . . Israel *** . . . . . . . . 7.0 . . . 11.0 . . . 3.1 . . . . 28% . . . . 44%
tie 8 . . Finland * . . . . . . . . 5.4 . . . 9.6 . . . 2.3 . . . . 24% . . . . 43%
tie 8 . . Norway * . . . . . . . . 4.9 . . . 6.2 . . . 2.1 . . . . 34% . . . . 43%
10 . . . New Zealand ** . . . . 4.3 . . . 5.5 . . . 1.8 . . . . 33% . . . . 42%

11 . . . UK . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62.1 . . . 82.4 . . . 25.0 . . . . 30% . . . . 40%
tie 12 . Italy . . . . . . . . . . . . 60.2 . . . 87.8 . . . 22.8 . . . . 26% . . . . 38%
tie 12 . Netherlands . . . . . . 16.7 . . . 19.7 . . . 6.3 . . . . 32% . . . . 38%
tie 14 . Austria . . . . . . . . . 8.4 . . . 13.0 . . . 3.0 . . . . 23% . . . . 36%
tie 14 . Taiwan *** . . . . . . . 23.0 . . . 31.0 . . . 8.2 . . . . 26% . . . . 36%
tie 16 . Greece ** . . . . . . . . 11.2 . . . 15.6 . . . 3.9 . . . . 25% . . . . 35%
tie 16 . Ireland ** . . . . . . . . 4.6 . . . 5.6 . . . 1.6 . . . . 29% . . . . 35%
tie 16 . Portugal ** . . . . . . . 10.7 . . . 17.0 . . . 3.7 . . . . 22% . . . . 35%
tie 16 . USA . . . . . . . . . . . 319.1 . . 319.4 . . 111.8 . . . . 35% . . . . 35%
20 . . . South Korea ***** . . . 48.6 . . . 54.0 . . . 16.4 . . . . 30% . . . . 34%

tie 21 . Canada ** . . . . . . . . 34.1 . . . 26.5 . . . 10.4 . . . . 39% . . . . 30%
tie 21 . Switzerland * . . . . . 7.6 . . . 9.7 . . . 2.3 . . . . 24% . . . . 30%
tie 21 . France . . . . . . . . . 62.8 . . . 66.0 . . . 18.8 . . . . 28% . . . . 30%
tie 24 . Germany . . . . . . . . 82.0 . . 107.7 . . . 23.0 . . . . 21% . . . . 28%
tie 24 . Belgium* . . . . . . . . 10.7 . . . 12.8 . . . 3.0 . . . . 23% . . . . 28%
tie 26 . Poland ** . . . . . . . 38.0 . . . 49.2 . . . 7.1 . . . . 14% . . . . 19%
tie 26 . Malaysia ** . . . . . . 28.1 . . . 36.6 . . . 5.2 . . . . 14% . . . . 19%
28 . . . Russia ** . . . . . . . 140.0 . . 234.4 . . . 25.0 . . . . 11% . . . . 18%
29 . . . South Africa . . . . . 50.6 . . . 58.8 . . . 8.7 . . . . 15% . . . . 17%
tie 30 . Czech Rep ** . . . . 10.4 . . . 14.2 . . . 1.7 . . . . 12% . . . . 16%
tie 30 . Hungary ** . . . . . . 10.0 . . . 11.4 . . . 1.6 . . . . 14% . . . . 16%

32 . . . Thailand ** . . . . . . 68.3 . . . 78.3 . . . 10.0 . . . . 13% . . . . 15%
tie 33 . Japan ***** . . . . . . 126.9 . . 126.8 . . . 18.1 . . . . 14% . . . . 14%
tie 33 . Brazil ** . . . . . . . . 197.7 . . 229.5 . . . 28.0 . . . . 12% . . . . 14%
tie 33 . Romania ** . . . . . 21.1 . . . 31.0 . . . 2.9 . . . . 9% . . . . 14%
36 . . . Turkey . . . . . . . . . 76.0 . . . 66.3 . . . 8.3 . . . . 13% . . . . 11%
37 . . . Ukraine ** . . . . . . 45.0 . . . 52.1 . . . 4.5 . . . . 9% . . . . 10%
tie 38 . Indonesia **** . . . . 229.0 . . 212.0 . . . 18.1 . . . . 9% . . . . 8%
tie 38 . Mexico ** . . . . . . . 111.1 . . . 99.3 . . . 8.7 . . . . 9% . . . . 8%
40 . . . Slovakia ** . . . . . . . 5.4 . . . 6.5 . . . 0.4 . . . . 6% . . . . 7%

41 . . . China ** . . . . . . . . 1360.0 . . 961.3 . . . 77.1 . . . . 8% . . . . 6%
42 . . . India ** . . . . . . . . 1220.0 . . 973.0 . . . 33.2 . . . . 3% . . . . 3%

(no star) average of both studies (best number)
* using surrogate data for Netsize, then averaged (second best number)
** using only Netsize/Informa data
*** only using Google/Ipsos data
**** Indonesia: using only half of rate from Google/Ipsos (because surveyed only city penetration)
***** Japan and S Korea: These numbers are NOT indicative of how advanced phones are in those countries, while technically are reasonably accurate measures of ‘only smartphones’

Source for above: TomiAhonen Consulting Analysis December 2011, based on raw data from Google/Ipsos, the Netsize Guide/Informa, and TomiAhonen Almanac 2011 reported data. You may quote the above table and any data from it, redesign the data, reorganize it and set it in any graphical form including use in Infographics and White Papers, as long as you list as the source: TomiAhonen Consulting 2011. If you mention the data, please include a link to this blog.

Tegelijk publiceren ze online een boekje over google en onderwijs: ”Google in Education: A New & Open World for Learning” .

Bekijk hier de folder:

• Volledige versie
• Pagina’s specifiek voor basis en secundair onderwijs
• Pagina’s specifiek voor het hoger onderwijs