The real reason Apple and Google want you to use your phone less

NIR EYAL MAY 19, 2019

If tech is “hijacking your brain” with their “irresistible” products, as some tech critics claim, why are these companies now acting against their own

interests?

This week Apple follows Google by announcing features to help people cut back on their tech use. Why would the companies that make

your phone want you to use it less? If tech is “hijacking your brain” with their “irresistible” products, as some tech critics claim, why are these

companies now acting against their own interests? Perhaps the tech giants have had a change of heart or have been persuaded by public pressure

to change their ways? Hardly. I studied the sophisticated psychology these companies deploy to keep people hooked and wrote a book about how

they do it. At first glance, it appears their business model would benefit from addiction. The more you use your phone, the more money they

make through the apps you buy and the ads you view.

However, the addiction story falls short when considering the long-term interests of these companies. Apple and Google are making it

easier for consumers to cut back on phone use because it is in their interest to do so. In this case, what’s good for the user is also good for these

companies’ bottom lines. Apple and Google don’t want you to get addicted. Addiction is a compulsive harmful behavior. Rather, they’d prefer you

form healthy habits with your digital devices.

Consider why you wear a seatbelt. In 1968, the Federal Government mandated that seat belts come equipped in all cars. However,

nineteen years before any such regulation, American car makers started offering seat belts as a feature. The laws came well after car makers

started offering seatbelts because that’s what consumers wanted. Car makers who sold safer cars sold more.

Similarly, thousands of third-party apps have given smartphone owners ways to moderate tech use with tools to help them monitor how

much time they spend online, turn off access to certain sites, and reduce digital distraction — tools very similar to what Apple and Google recently

announced. I started writing about this burgeoning trend, in what I called “attention retention” devices, back in early 2015 and today there are more

digital wellness products than ever.

As they often do with successful apps built on their platforms, Apple and Google took note of what consumers wanted and decided to

incorporate these features as standard — just as car makers did with seat belts in the 1950s. They also went beyond what app makers can do by

adding features only the operating system makers can offer, like batch notifications to reduce the frequency of intraday interruptions and the ability

to put the phone in “shush” mode by flipping it over.

The history of innovation is littered with examples of new technologies causing unintended harm. As cultural theorist Paul Virilio said,

“When you invent the ship, you also invent the shipwreck.” Although the devices these modern shipbuilders make certainly have potential

negative consequences, like overuse, it’s also in their interests to make their products less harmful.

With few exceptions, when a product harms people, consumers tend to use it less often or find better alternatives. The feature fight

between these two tech rivals benefits everyone. The move to help users create healthy habits with their devices is an example of competition

making products better.

Although they are certainly designed to be persuasive and user-friendly, we aren’t slaves to our technologies and it behooves us to stop

thinking we’re powerless. The tech companies are taking steps to help users rein in device overuse. Now it’s our turn to put these features to use,

buckle down, and buckle up

(Available in: https://www.theladders.com/career-advice/the-reason-apple-and-google-want-you-to-use-your-phone-less. Accessed on May 19th, 2019. Adapted.)

Questions 44-46 are based on the following passage:

Technology in schools: Future changes in classrooms

Technology has the power to transform how people learn -

but walk into some classrooms and you could be forgiven for thinking

you were entering a time warp. There will probably be a whiteboard

instead of the traditional blackboard, and the children may be using

laptops or tablets, but plenty of textbooks, pens and photocopied

sheets are still likely.

The curriculum and theory have changed little since

Victorian times, according to the educationalist and author Marc

Prensky. "The world needs a new curriculum," he said at the recent

Bett show, a conference dedicated to technology in education. Most

of the education products on the market are just aids to teach the

existing curriculum, he says, based on the false assumption "we

need to teach better what we teach today". He feels a whole new

core of subjects is needed, focusing on the skills that will equip

today's learners for tomorrow's world of work. These include

problem-solving, creative thinking and collaboration.

'Flipped' classrooms

One of the biggest problems with radically changing

centuries-old pedagogical methods is that no generation of parents

wants their children to be the guinea pigs. Mr Prensky he thinks we

have little choice, however: "We are living in an age of accelerating

change. We have to experiment and figure out what works."

"We are at the ground floor of a new world full of

imagination, creativity, innovation and digital wisdom. We are going

to have to create the education of the future because it doesn't exist

anywhere today." He might be wrong there. Change is already afoot

to disrupt the traditional classroom. The "flipped" classroom - the

idea of inverting traditional teaching methods by delivering

instructions online outside of the classroom and using the time in

school as the place to do homework - has gained in popularity in US

schools. The teacher's role becomes one of a guide, while students

watch lectures at home at their own pace, communicating with

classmates and teachers online.

(Available in:https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-30814302. Accessed on May

18st, 2019. Adapted. Author: Jane Wakefield.)

Questions 44-46 are based on the following passage:

Technology in schools: Future changes in classrooms

Technology has the power to transform how people learn -

but walk into some classrooms and you could be forgiven for thinking

you were entering a time warp. There will probably be a whiteboard

instead of the traditional blackboard, and the children may be using

laptops or tablets, but plenty of textbooks, pens and photocopied

sheets are still likely.

The curriculum and theory have changed little since

Victorian times, according to the educationalist and author Marc

Prensky. "The world needs a new curriculum," he said at the recent

Bett show, a conference dedicated to technology in education. Most

of the education products on the market are just aids to teach the

existing curriculum, he says, based on the false assumption "we

need to teach better what we teach today". He feels a whole new

core of subjects is needed, focusing on the skills that will equip

today's learners for tomorrow's world of work. These include

problem-solving, creative thinking and collaboration.

'Flipped' classrooms

One of the biggest problems with radically changing

centuries-old pedagogical methods is that no generation of parents

wants their children to be the guinea pigs. Mr Prensky he thinks we

have little choice, however: "We are living in an age of accelerating

change. We have to experiment and figure out what works."

"We are at the ground floor of a new world full of

imagination, creativity, innovation and digital wisdom. We are going

to have to create the education of the future because it doesn't exist

anywhere today." He might be wrong there. Change is already afoot

to disrupt the traditional classroom. The "flipped" classroom - the

idea of inverting traditional teaching methods by delivering

instructions online outside of the classroom and using the time in

school as the place to do homework - has gained in popularity in US

schools. The teacher's role becomes one of a guide, while students

watch lectures at home at their own pace, communicating with

classmates and teachers online.

(Available in:https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-30814302. Accessed on May

18st, 2019. Adapted. Author: Jane Wakefield.)

Questions 40-43 are based on the following passage:

The “Social Practice” of Teaching

Examining teaching from the context of a ‘social practice’

may provide us with fresh insights that will challenge the accepted

ways of seeing the world of teaching with important implications for

faculty development. First, we will look at what we mean by a social

practice and then see how teaching falls into that category. A social

practice needs to be understood in terms of purpose, context, and a

complex array of norms. A social practice is, first, a form of activity

that has grown out of common needs in a community to accomplish

certain purposes.

A system of etiquette and a means for communication

serve to make human society more civil. Second, a social practice

involves shared and mutually understood ways of behaving or

acting. Third, the patterns of action are guided by a complex array

or norms that we might call rules, standards, principles, precepts,

and unwritten policies. These norms have authority (people comply

willingly), and they are created and recreated in and through the

interactions of those involved in the practice (Case, 1990; Selman,

1989; MacIntyre, 1984; Taylor, 1983). The norms provide reasons

for the actions or behaviors of individuals. As in etiquette using

particular forms of address, handshaking, and removing or wearing

particular headwear are the behaviors that constitute the practice.

The behaviors have meaning only in terms of the context of

that particular community and purpose and can only be explained in

relation to the guiding norms. The feature of a social practice (they

develop out of the common needs of the community) is clearly

consistent with what has already been said about the purposive

nature of teaching. Teaching is an activity that has grown out of the

need in a community to pass on its knowledge, mores, and

behaviors and in medical schools these are formulated as mission

statements which include educational aims. To view teaching as a

social practice is to acknowledge, first and foremost, the

expectations society has for teaching, or in other words, the

particular purposes of teaching.

(Available in: D’Eon, M., Overgaard, V., & Harding, S. R. (2000). Advances in

Health Sciences Education, 5(2), 151–162. Accessed on May 18st, 2019.

Adapted.)

Questions 40-43 are based on the following passage:

The “Social Practice” of Teaching

Examining teaching from the context of a ‘social practice’

may provide us with fresh insights that will challenge the accepted

ways of seeing the world of teaching with important implications for

faculty development. First, we will look at what we mean by a social

practice and then see how teaching falls into that category. A social

practice needs to be understood in terms of purpose, context, and a

complex array of norms. A social practice is, first, a form of activity

that has grown out of common needs in a community to accomplish

certain purposes.

A system of etiquette and a means for communication

serve to make human society more civil. Second, a social practice

involves shared and mutually understood ways of behaving or

acting. Third, the patterns of action are guided by a complex array

or norms that we might call rules, standards, principles, precepts,

and unwritten policies. These norms have authority (people comply

willingly), and they are created and recreated in and through the

interactions of those involved in the practice (Case, 1990; Selman,

1989; MacIntyre, 1984; Taylor, 1983). The norms provide reasons

for the actions or behaviors of individuals. As in etiquette using

particular forms of address, handshaking, and removing or wearing

particular headwear are the behaviors that constitute the practice.

The behaviors have meaning only in terms of the context of

that particular community and purpose and can only be explained in

relation to the guiding norms. The feature of a social practice (they

develop out of the common needs of the community) is clearly

consistent with what has already been said about the purposive

nature of teaching. Teaching is an activity that has grown out of the

need in a community to pass on its knowledge, mores, and

behaviors and in medical schools these are formulated as mission

statements which include educational aims. To view teaching as a

social practice is to acknowledge, first and foremost, the

expectations society has for teaching, or in other words, the

particular purposes of teaching.

(Available in: D’Eon, M., Overgaard, V., & Harding, S. R. (2000). Advances in

Health Sciences Education, 5(2), 151–162. Accessed on May 18st, 2019.

Adapted.)

Questions 40-43 are based on the following passage:

The “Social Practice” of Teaching

Examining teaching from the context of a ‘social practice’

may provide us with fresh insights that will challenge the accepted

ways of seeing the world of teaching with important implications for

faculty development. First, we will look at what we mean by a social

practice and then see how teaching falls into that category. A social

practice needs to be understood in terms of purpose, context, and a

complex array of norms. A social practice is, first, a form of activity

that has grown out of common needs in a community to accomplish

certain purposes.

A system of etiquette and a means for communication

serve to make human society more civil. Second, a social practice

involves shared and mutually understood ways of behaving or

acting. Third, the patterns of action are guided by a complex array

or norms that we might call rules, standards, principles, precepts,

and unwritten policies. These norms have authority (people comply

willingly), and they are created and recreated in and through the

interactions of those involved in the practice (Case, 1990; Selman,

1989; MacIntyre, 1984; Taylor, 1983). The norms provide reasons

for the actions or behaviors of individuals. As in etiquette using

particular forms of address, handshaking, and removing or wearing

particular headwear are the behaviors that constitute the practice.

The behaviors have meaning only in terms of the context of

that particular community and purpose and can only be explained in

relation to the guiding norms. The feature of a social practice (they

develop out of the common needs of the community) is clearly

consistent with what has already been said about the purposive

nature of teaching. Teaching is an activity that has grown out of the

need in a community to pass on its knowledge, mores, and

behaviors and in medical schools these are formulated as mission

statements which include educational aims. To view teaching as a

social practice is to acknowledge, first and foremost, the

expectations society has for teaching, or in other words, the

particular purposes of teaching.

(Available in: D’Eon, M., Overgaard, V., & Harding, S. R. (2000). Advances in

Health Sciences Education, 5(2), 151–162. Accessed on May 18st, 2019.

Adapted.)

Questions 40-43 are based on the following passage:

The “Social Practice” of Teaching

Examining teaching from the context of a ‘social practice’

may provide us with fresh insights that will challenge the accepted

ways of seeing the world of teaching with important implications for

faculty development. First, we will look at what we mean by a social

practice and then see how teaching falls into that category. A social

practice needs to be understood in terms of purpose, context, and a

complex array of norms. A social practice is, first, a form of activity

that has grown out of common needs in a community to accomplish

certain purposes.

A system of etiquette and a means for communication

serve to make human society more civil. Second, a social practice

involves shared and mutually understood ways of behaving or

acting. Third, the patterns of action are guided by a complex array

or norms that we might call rules, standards, principles, precepts,

and unwritten policies. These norms have authority (people comply

willingly), and they are created and recreated in and through the

interactions of those involved in the practice (Case, 1990; Selman,

1989; MacIntyre, 1984; Taylor, 1983). The norms provide reasons

for the actions or behaviors of individuals. As in etiquette using

particular forms of address, handshaking, and removing or wearing

particular headwear are the behaviors that constitute the practice.

The behaviors have meaning only in terms of the context of

that particular community and purpose and can only be explained in

relation to the guiding norms. The feature of a social practice (they

develop out of the common needs of the community) is clearly

consistent with what has already been said about the purposive

nature of teaching. Teaching is an activity that has grown out of the

need in a community to pass on its knowledge, mores, and

behaviors and in medical schools these are formulated as mission

statements which include educational aims. To view teaching as a

social practice is to acknowledge, first and foremost, the

expectations society has for teaching, or in other words, the

particular purposes of teaching.

(Available in: D’Eon, M., Overgaard, V., & Harding, S. R. (2000). Advances in

Health Sciences Education, 5(2), 151–162. Accessed on May 18st, 2019.

Adapted.)

Questions 35-38 are based on the following passage:

The Regional English Training Centres (RETC) project – new

approach to teaching English already shows results

September 30, 2018 08:00 By The nation

British Council and the Thai Education Ministry have joined

hands to modernise the teaching methods of 17,000 English-language

teachers in the kingdom, moving from the “grammar-vocabulary”

memorisation system to focus on communication.The UK cultural and

education international body’s Regional English Training Centres

(RETC) project aims to improve the skills of teachers at primary and

secondary schools across Thailand.

Some 75% of English teachers in Thailand are ranked at the

A2 elementary level in the Common European Framework of Reference

(CEFR), representing an IELTS score of 3.5 to 4, according to the

statement issued by British Council on Friday.The RETC Boot Camp

project was first introduced in 2015 to improve overall English teaching

proficiency. After two and a half years, 15,300 English teachers, or 90%,

have improved their confidence in teaching English and using it in

classrooms.

As the next step, an assessment and evaluation system is to

be considered to assist in the adaptation toward the communicative

approach.

Education Minister Teerakiat Jareonsettasin said the

development of Thai students’ English skills is crucial and needs serious

improvement. Each Thai student studies English for at least 12 years at

primary and secondary school, however most are unable to

communicate in English which is the main obstacle to global

competition, he said. Two main challenges that need to be addressed

are Thai teachers’ English skills and their teaching approach. “By

focusing on language accuracy and the memorisation method rather

than the communicative approach, most Thai students cannot

communicate effectively in English,” he said.

Many Thai students also have a poor attitude towards English

classes. Andrew Glass, director of British Council Thailand, said since

the start of the project, 15 RETCs have been established and that

17,000 out of 40,000 of Thailand’s English teachers have been trained

and mentored in the communicative approach. Additionally, more than

30 teachers have been intensively trained to become TMTs. They work

with British Council trainers to mentor and transfer knowledge to

teachers and school directors, creating academic networking

opportunities with regional supervisors to improve their follow-up

sessions.

After completing the project, the research clearly indicates that

90% or 15,300 English teachers have more confidence in teaching

English in the communicative approach and more confidence in using

English in their classrooms. Besides, 72 of English teachers improved

their lesson planning and were able to give clearer instructions, while

94% improved their lesson management. In addition, 93% of English

teachers have improved their English subject knowledge. Sutthiwat

Sutthiprapa, one of the Thai master trainers and a full-time English

teacher at Khor Wittayakom in Nakhon Phanom Province, said all the

knowledge he gained from the RETC project can be applied in his

English classes. “It significantly changes the atmosphere of the

classroom and the students’ attitude towards English. "Students are

eager to attend the class and make every effort to participate in class

activities. I believe that if every English teacher in Thailand exploits the

RETC concept, Thai students’ English ability will increase

considerably," he said.

(Available in: https://www.bangkokpost.com/news/general/1548446/british-councilhelps-

train-thai-english-language-teachers.Accessed on May 18th, 2019. Adapted.)