"Would you be happy if you were in a court of law, and the evidence that is used against you was of the quality that the author used to justify their opinion in this article?""The US Department of Health has revealed that 48 per cent of children who use electronic devices, like smart-phones, for five or more hours a day have suicide-related thoughts. The rise in teenage depression in the USA between 2010-16 was 60 per cent."
This opinion piece (disguised as an informative research article) is a template of the poor quality of information most people receive about the impact of technology on children and teenagers and the conclusions that are subsequently drawn. Which parent with a child who uses an electronic device would not be concerned about these statistics? However, the way the article is written leads the reader to come to certain polarising conclusions based on information it does not include, and it accuses those who are not concerned about the statistic to be disregarding the mental health of children. Rather than enter into the debate again about the proposed harms of technology on people, I wanted to ask the question "Would you be happy if you were in a court of law, and the evidence that is used against you was of the quality that the author used to justify their opinion in this article?" What information is lacking to allow the reader to come to an informed and objective conclusion? I would want my lawyer to ask specific questions... "What percentage of children who do not use electronic devices have suicidal thoughts?" (We are led to assume it considerably less based on how the article is written. We know this is not the case!) "Specifically, what electronic devices were being used?" (The last significant study by the US Dept of Health was based on TV viewing usage from which most of the conclusions about the impact of interactive electronic devices has been drawn.) "How were the devices being used?" (Were the children passively watching TV, were the children playing age-inappropriate games, doing homework on their computer etc.?) "Is it normal for people to have suicidal thoughts (what is the definition) and how is this different from having suicidal tendencies?" "Five hours a day, every day, is a significant amount of time. What percentage of people surveyed had five hours or more a day of continuous use and how did this reflect the home life and the choices the parent condoned?" So what is my point? When we read articles like this, we need to be careful to avoid jumping to conclusions based on crucial information that is omitted either through lazy research or deliberately avoiding contrasting information to substantiate personal opinions. https://nz.educationhq.com/news/49645/its-time-schools-look-at-how-smartphones-are-impacting-our-children
I last visited California in 2013 to explore their educational setting to get a compass as to what technological trends were emerging and how these trends might impact what was happening in NZ. The visit in 2013 was hugely beneficial for our school. Our Leamington Learner concept significantly developed, and the 6 C’s of our technologically capable learner evolved as a direct result of what we learnt. In fact, a large number of infrastructure decisions and concepts about the use of technology came from the 2013 experience.
My latest trip to California I have no doubt will be as beneficial and influential on helping to shape and provide clarity about critical paths we are walking as a school. It was an incredible privilege to spend two weeks talking with very switched on school leaders and teachers, unpack their thinking and understand the influences that have shaped the decisions they have made about their school direction. To see first hand what errors they have made, the successes they have won, and speak with students about the impact these decisions have had on their learning has been invaluable. It has allowed me to separate educational window dressing from some compelling educational possibilities which has left me in a fog that has taken some time to clear and gain further clarity. These lessons will save us months of discussions, errors, deadends and has provided a spotlight on concepts we are starting to talk about as a country that will no doubt be sticky concepts (ideas that will stand the test of time and become more and more significant over time.) But why go to California?
So what has changed? The most significant thing I noticed as having gone through rapid change is America is quickly becoming a cashless society. I recall from several years ago everything being cash. Now, every vending machine has apple pay, google pay, Garmin pay, paywave etc. Many eating establishments now have tablets on the tables where you order what you want, when you want it, you then swipe your “pay” system and the food or beverage just arrives - there is no need to ever go to the counter. Taxis are non-existent with Uber and Lyft cars everywhere and ordered from an app that tells you how much your fair will cost before you confirm your journey. It even shows you in real time the car coming to your location. Electric cars are noticeably present with charging stations for cars occupied more times than not. So what has changed educationally? The overarching takeaway theme from 2013 was California was exploring ways to use technology to transfer a “paper-based textbook centred” education system to a digital textbook format. Of the schools we visited, a significantly new direction has emerged. The discussions from each of the schools we spent time in centred around the urgency to have an education system that;
The children still needed to know "stuff" to get a space in college, but the way of teaching children has started to change significantly. Two quotes from teachers stood out for me “I used to be the smartest person in the room. Now, with the technology the children have at home, they are the smartest person in the room. They can now learn most of the things I used to teach them without me. My role now is to help them ask really good questions and connect with smart people outside of our classroom.” “Don't try and predict what opportunities the children may be missing out on today, rather help them to learn the skills that means they don't have to worry about what tomorrow brings.” For some of the schools we visited, these conversations are still in the early phases, while others are well down this track and are receiving a lot of attention and visitors from all over America - some even globally. A big takeaway is that the juggernaut of American educational culture is being reexamined and reimagined. Many of the educational improvements we are exploring as a country and school - they are now actively developing and are bringing considerable financial resources and personnel to bear to bring about shifts with urgency. Based on their district schooling model, when a district starts exploring an issue they often represent 30 000 students across 20 - 30 schools from Primary to Secondary (the number of districts we visited alone would have represented over 100 000 American students.) Flexible seating, teachers working together to exploit their strengths, learning through play, maker spaces, not teaching children based on one grade level, children having choice about their learning and being able to talk about their learning, being skills based rather than content driven, communicating across a range of mediums, using technology as an enabler rather than thinking of it as a magical tool that will cause children to learn better and make good choices etc. are just some of the big concepts that were not there five years ago and will likely be significantly more developed in another 5 years. So what does this mean for our School? None of these concepts are new to our school. We have been exploring these pedagogies for different periods of time. However, now we have more clarity about what is likely to be sticky, what deadends we can avoid, what errors we can leapfrog, what opportunities we need to amplify etc. Many conversations with a wide number of people need to take place to unpack many of these ideas and breath life into them within Leamington so we do not "splatter" new ideas recklessly. Exciting and challenging times ahead - it's going to be an every interesting next few years! This documentary movie was made about one of the schools we visited. It has been shared with me to be viewed by members of our school community exclusively. In recent times there has been a lot said, and a lot claimed about the impact of mobile devices and the impact of screen time on children. And rightly so, screens and their impact on our society are still in their infancy. However, the discussion about the negative impact of new technology on children is not new. The previous generation of parents had the same concerns about TV, the generation before Rock and Roll. In fact, the discussions we are having today has a literature base indicating that similar discussions were taking place with the advent of the street lamp and also all children required to attend school in the 1800's.
It might surprise some people that when it comes to the impact of technology on children and their development, there is very little agreement among experts about if technology has a positive, neutral or negative impact. There are many pieces of research that point to correlational links between the use of technology and the positive, negative and neutral impact findings that follow. Unfortunately, in most instances, only the negative correlational links of the impact of technology are reported and capture our attention. However, there is a body of research literature that most experts agree on regarding the negative impacts of screens on young people. This literature base does not relate to the use of mobile devices directly, rather to the impact of TV. It is surprising that since studies conducted in the 80's about the impact of TV on young people, the vast body of research, including the more recent studies that include brain scans still study "passive screen time" impacts. It is widely agreed by experts in their field that passive screen time probably needs to be considered differently to interactive screen time. Passive Screen time is when children view a screen, like the TV, that requires no input from the viewer. Interactive Screen time requires the user to make decisions and cognitively respond to the stimulus on the screen. So what do most researchers agree on? If screen time causes reduced sleep, then that will have a negative impact. If not managed correctly, screens can affect sleeping patterns and the amount of sleep one has. There is a body of literature that shows a correlation between children having a TV in their room and reduced sleep, and a reduction in the amount of deep sleep. There is over 50 years of literature that documents the effects of sleep deprivation, including the negative impact on children. A major study in the 1980's indicated a strong correlation of screens in bedrooms or sitting close to a TV screen and reduced sleep. It is believed that when our eyes are close to screens, the light they emit and the amount of light our eyes then collect affects our internal body rhythm which causes us to think we should stay awake. Also, when what we are viewing on screens contains a lot of stimuli before sleeping, it also affects the amount of dopamine and cortisol in our system which again does not help sleep. Most experts agree that minimising the impact of screens before sleep will reduce any possible negative impact. This is not limited to screen use however, it includes anything that causes an increase in dopamine and cortisol. However, the dose is the poison. One-off events are not going to cause harm, rather ongoing occurrences do. Anything that causes a cumulative sleep reduction is a bad thing. Obesity When children are involved in prolonged sedentary activities two things happen. The first is children do not move as much which affects muscle and bone development as well as the number of calories burnt. The second is they tend to eat more than they normally would. This applies to any sedentary activity that is prolonged over a cumulative period. Change to reaction when exposed aggression - coming in my next post! |
AuthorMike Malcolm - Principal of Leamington School Archives
August 2019
Categories
All
|