A three-year-old talks to grandma . A seven-year-old reads a fairy-tale with Dad . A child with spatial-awareness issues .
Is this okay? Good, even? Would something else be . . . better?
After 15 to 20 years of scientific research on media use (in its ever changing forms), we have very specific and yet somehow less conclusive results than one might imagine.
Here鈥檚 what we do know. We know media use in children can lead to , , ,, , , and . . Those who are labeled as addicted to media also . And we鈥檝e recently learned that falters compared to multi-tasking amongst less media immersed peers. This correlates nicely with showing a one-third decline in thanks to our media-heavy world.
But is it all bad? Studies say that some forms of technology have been found to , , and , just to name a few.
So what鈥檚 the verdict? used to recommend total screen abstinence for children younger than 2, but as of September 2015, their stance has changed because, as they say, 鈥淚n a world where 鈥渟creen time鈥� is becoming simply 鈥渢ime,鈥� our policies must evolve or become obsolete.鈥� Now, they recommend for managing this ever growing quagmire of options.
Regardless of the negatives and positives that seem to emerge daily around the tech debate, the heart of the issue for many social scientists, pediatricians, and educators is ultimately about what our children are NOT DOING any longer.
What has been replaced by ? We know this answer — many very valuable things with proven, high-level cognitive benefits like , , , and with family and peers.
From Development to the Classroom
While initial results for tech in the classroom , scientific study results from full implementation of these efforts are .
released a comprehensive study this fall, , which found, 鈥淯se of computers does not seem to be a prominent factor in explaining the variation in student performance in math, reading, or science. Most countries that invested heavily in education related IT equipment did not witness an appreciable improvement in student achievement over the past 10 years.鈥�
Not only is tech in school not helping, it鈥檚 actually hurting student performance. The same study found that those students with the most tech access, had than those with some or none.
Does it come down to it? Is it more than the real curriculum behind it?
The fact is, technology may occasionally provide a positive application for learning, but those same positives can be accomplished by more well-established, non-tech means. Waldorf educators see so many proven opportunities to boost learning in the classroom, through non-tech methods — , , outdoor education, , — that we ask, why is tech in the classroom being deemed necessary at all?
Many parents, , are shelving this debate in favor of the time tested methods and results of non-tech education for children. As Google Executive, Alan Eagle, stated in the article, :
鈥淚 fundamentally reject the notion you need technology aids in grammar school. The idea that an app on an iPad can better teach my kids to read or do arithmetic, that鈥檚 ridiculous.鈥�
When Waldorf educators consider what children must learn to thrive in a technological society, we argue that the mechanics of learning to use any given device is irrelevant, especially considering that passing time quickly makes it irrelevant. We need students who can innovate and learn ANY skill quickly. We need students that can connect parts to whole thinking, properly deduce and problem solve, understand mathematical and algebraic concepts. And there are a plethora of superior, proven, offline options available to teach these crucial skills.
Ultimately, the scientific research is still pouring in and thus far the jury is 鈥渟till out鈥� on the cumulative effects media use has on our children and our learning culture. Waldorf educators simply say: it can all wait. Develop the child鈥檚 curiosity, imagination and critical thinking through a rich, multidisciplinary curriculum. Engage their heads, hands, and hearts by immersing them in our
Photo credit:
