Is It Really Social Media That's Lowering Grades? Is It the Smartphone or How It's Used That Affects Academic Performance? — The Cost of "Long Hours Online" as Reflected by PISA

Is It Social Media Itself That Is Diminishing Academic Ability?

Children's academic abilities are declining. When people hear this, many are quick to blame smartphones. Indeed, a new analysis reported in Germany strongly supports this intuition. The analysis by IW Cologne, based on PISA 2022 data, indicates that the more time spent on digital media like social media and games, the more significant the negative impact on academic indicators. The underlying reason is simple: the time absorbed by screens reduces time for homework, reading, exercise, and sleep. Moreover, Germany's PISA 2022 results showed a noticeable decline in mathematics, reading, and science, with mathematics scores dropping by 25 points, reading by 18 points, and science by 11 points compared to 2018. Amidst strong concerns about educational decline, the discussion about "social media time" naturally spread rapidly.

However, oversimplifying the issue here can lead to missing the essence. While the new analysis reported in the original article suggests that "the longer the use, the worse the outcome," the OECD's own analysis related to PISA 2022 paints a more complex picture. Regarding digital entertainment after school or before and after commuting, in several countries, students who use it moderately for about 2 to 4 hours a day show higher values in mathematics performance and a sense of belonging to school compared to those with near-zero usage. Conversely, performance declines beyond 4 hours, and on weekends, the negative trend strengthens beyond 5 hours. Thus, digital usage is not uniformly bad; the problem lies in "excessive use" and "usage that encroaches on other time."

Moreover, what cannot be overlooked is how digital devices are used in schools. According to the OECD's analysis, the relationship with performance begins to deteriorate from the point of using digital devices for entertainment purposes for one hour in school. Another OECD document shows that students who use devices for entertainment purposes in school for less than one hour a day scored 49 points higher in mathematics than those who used them for 5 to 7 hours. The difference remains even after adjusting for socioeconomic background. Additionally, 30% of students on average across the OECD reported being distracted by digital devices during math classes. The data supports the obvious fact that ICT used in lessons and entertainment screen time that disrupts classes are different matters.

Overlaying this issue with the current reality of young people's lives makes the discussion more tangible. According to Germany's JIM survey, the average daily smartphone screen time for 12- to 19-year-olds is 231 minutes, nearly 4 hours. Moreover, a Vodafone Stiftung survey found that 73% of young people feel they use social media longer than they want, and 56% say they want to reduce it but cannot. This is not just a concern adults have; the users themselves already have a sense of "losing control." The debate on declining academic ability is an extension of that feeling.

Reactions on social media are not neatly divided into two. The most noticeable reaction is, "Regulation is necessary after all." stern's X post introduced this research as "material supporting the argument for banning social media for children," and ifo Institute's X post spread strongly with the statement that "85% of adults support a minimum age of 16." For those who share the sense of crisis, such figures are very straightforward. Grades are falling, concentration is being eroded, and even the users themselves find it hard to quit. Therefore, the trend is to strengthen age restrictions and regulations within schools.

On the other hand, there is also strong opposition arguing that "a total ban won't solve the problem." DIW Berlin's Instagram post stated that there is no majority support for a blanket ban until age 16, and lower age restrictions or alternative protective measures are more supported. The public relations account of Otto von Guericke University Magdeburg argued that strengthening media literacy is necessary rather than a general ban on social media. Internet policy media have also pointed out that opinions can vary greatly depending on how the survey questions are framed. In fact, while ifo's survey showed high support for a minimum age of 16, DIW's survey found that only 33% supported a total ban until age 16, while 71% agreed if it was until age 12. Public opinion varies significantly depending on "what, until what age, and how to restrict."

What is important here is to shift the axis of the debate from "whether to use or not" to "in what environment, at what age, and how to allow use." In fact, a statement from the German Society for Child and Adolescent Psychiatry proposes no digital media for ages 0-3, no use for those under 14, restricted use for those under 16, and effective age verification for algorithm-based social media, messengers, and video services. Simultaneously, it calls for restrictions on bringing and using personal smartphones in schools, media literacy education from elementary school, support for parents, and banning "manipulative design" in services for children. Thus, experts are also aiming for multi-layered measures according to age differences and risk differences, rather than a binary choice of "total freedom" or "total ban."

From this perspective, it is indeed risky to solely blame social media for the decline in academic ability. The decline in Germany's PISA scores is due to multiple factors, including the long-term impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, socioeconomic disparities, and language environments at home. The original article also states that even after considering factors like parents' occupational status, the number of books at home, and the language spoken at home, the negative impact of digital time remains. However, it still cannot be said that "grades will return if smartphones are eliminated." Rather, the problem is that designs that fragment attention, usage habits that are hard to quit, and the breakdown of life plans that encroach on learning time have already penetrated inside classrooms.

Ultimately, the real question in this theme is not "whether to let children have smartphones." The questions are who is taking away children's disposable time, how far society allows designs that erode concentration, and how schools and families can create environments without relying solely on self-control. Simply jumping to prohibition is not enough. However, the stage of taking free use for granted is also over. What the PISA figures and social media debates indicate is not the pros and cons of screens, but the heavy question of whether it is acceptable to leave children's lives based on excessive connectivity unchecked.

Source URL

• Business Panorama
  https://business-panorama.de/news.php?newsid=6693973
• stern. Key points of IW/INSM analysis, references to JIM survey and Vodafone Stiftung survey included
  https://www.stern.de/politik/deutschland/social-media-macht-dumm--vielnutzer-sind-schlechtere-schueler-37288260.html
• Official summary of Germany's PISA 2022 results (KMK. Confirmation of Germany's decline in mathematics, reading, and science)
  https://www.kmk.org/aktuelles/pressearchiv/mitteilung/pisa.html
• Overview of international comparison data for PISA 2022 (Destatis. For confirming Germany's ranking and comparison with OECD average)
  https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Laender-Regionen/Internationales/Thema/bevoelkerung-arbeit-soziales/bildung/PISA2022.html
• OECD policy analysis (Difference between moderate and excessive use after school, impact on life satisfaction and school belonging)
  https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/finite-time-to-learn-and-play_edbaa4bb-en/full-report/component-6.html
• OECD analysis of screen time in schools (Entertainment use in schools, distraction during lessons, and relationship with math performance)
  https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/managing-screen-time_7c225af4-en.html
• JIM-Studie 2025 (Source confirming the figure of approximately 4 hours of daily smartphone screen time for ages 12-19)
  https://mpfs.de/studie/jim-studie-2025/
• Vodafone Stiftung youth survey (Source confirming 73% of young people feel they are using too much, 56% want to reduce but cannot)
  https://www.vodafone-stiftung.de/jugendstudie-2025-social-media/
• ifo Institute survey results (Source confirming high public support for a minimum age of 16)
  https://www.ifo.de/pressemitteilung/2025-09-09/mehrheit-will-mindestalter-fuer-social-media-nutzung
• Introduction of DIW/related surveys (Contrasting data showing no majority for a total ban until age 16, high support for restrictions until age 12)
  https://www.diw.de/de/diw_01.c.1001545.de/soziale_medien__mehrheit_gegen_altersverbot_bis_16_jahre_____hohe_zustimmung_fuer_alternative_schutzmassnahmen.html
• Joint statement related to child and adolescent psychiatry (Recommendations by age, specific measures for schools, families, and businesses)
  https://www.dgkjp.de/gemeinsame-stellungnahme-zur-nutzung-digitaler-medien-und-psychischer-gesundheit-von-kindern-und-jugendlichen/