If I may ask parents: do
you allow your kids to use gadgets? The possible answers may be divided
into two groups; the pros and the cons. Those who are not allowing kids to use
gadgets would say that gadgets will prevent the motor skills development of
toddlers that will affect their future learning skills. Small kids should be
exposed to use pencil, crayon, and spending time drawing instead of typing,
pointing, clicking, and touching screens. Most of them also believe that gadget
addiction for kids could create brain damage that causes them hard to
concentrate and lead to Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)
symptoms. Other effect that is also feared by the cons is gadgets have the
potential to hold back children’s development in language skills, social
interaction skills, and creativity.
They also would feel some kind of affirmation knowing that
Steve Jobs himself limited the use of gadgets to his own children. In a Sunday
article, New York Times reporter Nick Bilton said he once assumingly asked
Jobs, “So your kids must love the iPad?” Jobs responded: “They haven’t used it.
We limit how much technology our kids use at home.”
In one article by Sarah Lesnar (2014) posted on
http://nextshark.com/, in Silicon Valley,
there is actually a trend of technology experts and engineers who shield their
kids from technology. They even send their kids to non-tech schools like the
Waldorf School in Los Altos, where computers aren’t found anywhere because they
only focus on hands-on learning.
As oppose to those strong statements mentioned above, I
believe that children, starting from young age, should be introduced to
technology, including televisions, computers, phones, and other electronic
devices. Kids nowadays are called as digital natives, net generation, the
Google generation, or the millenials. All of these terms are being used to
highlight the significance and importance of new technologies within the lives
of young people (Gibbons, 2007). The technology has become part of their world
that cannot be easily separated from them as it will also create a fundamental
change in the way people communicate, socialize, create, and learn in the
future. Children nowadays will be living in the world with such characteristic,
and we need to give them sufficient knowledge to be able to adapt in such
world.
An article by Divya Dave and Avnish Dave (2011) entitled
“Electronic Media and Child Behaviour” mentioned that in today’s society,
electronic media are thoroughly integrated into the fabric of life, with
television, movies, videos, music, video games, and computers, central to both
work and play. The article focuses on how actually gadgets or media could be
used as third parent or servant in providing education and entertainment to
children, despite the negative impacts that they would bring. The negative
impacts of media would appear with the influence of lot of aspects related to
media exposure and child behavior. Parents will still be the most important
player in the behavior modification of the children.
The article also gave tips on managing children’s media
consumption, such as; be alert of the content of media that the children use,
avoid using gadgets as baby sitter and plan some other fun activities instead,
and limit the use of the media. It also encouraged parents to be active and talk
with children while they’re accessing the program in their gadgets. Co-viewing
adults can make gadgets use an active process and even facilitate learning out
of it. Take time to discuss the game they are playing, ask the children how
they feel about what they observe from the program. Somehow this experience
could be an opportunity to share feelings and grow closer to the children. The
parents should also be media/gadget literate to be able set explicit guidelines
for appropriate use of gadgets. Not only that, parents should set good example
for the children by also limiting their own use of gadgets and apply the set
guidelines.
They conclude that media technology can be used effectively
as a teaching tool in school but the results depend on how teachers use the
technology and their own comfort level with the media. Attention to television
appears to be closely related to the child’s understanding of the contents.
Content if designed correctly can enhance learning. Transfer of learning from
TV is possible only if the child understands the contents, remembers it and
sees it in relation to the new problem.
Another research that may affirm my statement was conducted
by Marie Evans Schmidt and Elizabeth Vandewater (2008). The research reviews on
links between various types of electronic media and the cognitive skills of
school-aged children and adolescents. One central finding of studies to date,
they say, is that the content delivered by electronic media is far more
influential than the media themselves. Several key findings of this research
are that many parents believe in the educational value of electronic
media/gadgets, majority of parents have seen their children imitate behavior
from TV, and they are more likely to see the children copy pro-social rather than
aggressive behaviors. Another finding shows that the influence of electronic
media and technology on youthful learning and cognitive development cannot be
summarized, it turns out that content matters. High-quality educational
television programs seem to have positive effects for children’s learning,
academic skills, and academic engagement.
Ellen Helsper and Rebecca Enyon (2009) in their research
entitled “Digital Natives: Where is the Evidence?” stated that younger people
do have a greater range of ICTs in their household, tend to use the Internet as
a first port of call, have higher levels of Internet self-efficacy, multi-task
more, and use the Internet for fact checking and formal learning activities.
This research believes that parents do have an important role in supporting
their own children’s use of technology.
Recently the term ‘Digital Citizenship’ appears and went
viral on the net. Definition of Digital Citizenship itself defines by Mike S.
Ribble, Gerald D. Bailey, and Tweed W. Ross (2014) as the norms of behavior
with regard to technology use. The main objective is to address appropriate
technology behavior to society, particularly to younger generation.
International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE)
gives us a starting point. ISTE’s National Educational Technology Standards
(NETS) believes that the standards for students, teachers, and administrators
all address social and ethical issues. It covers three very broad areas:
1.
Students understand the ethical, cultural, and
societal issues related to technology.
2.
Students practice responsible use of technology
systems, information, and software.
3.
Students develop positive attitudes toward
technology applications that support lifelong learning, collaboration, personal
pursuits, and productivity.
All three of these areas are very important and help form
students’ technological development. Digital citizenship has become a priority
for schools that see technology integration as a major teaching and learning
strategy for preparing students to live and work in the 21st century.
Not only parents and teachers who need to take role in
creating safe technological environment to the younger generation, government
should also take part in implementing regulations. As discussed in a paper by
Sandra L Calvert (2008) entitled ‘Children as Consumers: Advertising and Marketing’
government provide some protection for children from advertising and marketing
practices. Regulators exert more control over content on scarce television
airwaves that belong to the public than over content on the more open online
spaces. This should also be applied to the contents on the net.
REFERENCES
Dave, Divya and
Dave, Avnish. 2011.
Electronic Media and
Child Behaviour. National journal of media research vol 1 Issue 2
Oct – Dec 2011: ISSN 2249 4995. Retrieved from:
http://njmr.in/uploads/1-2_87-89.pdf
Escobar-Chaves, Soledad
Liliana & Anderson, Craig A.(2008). Media and Risky Behaviors. The Future
of Children Princeton - Brookings volume 18 number 1 spring 2008. Retrieved
from:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21338011
