How Much Tech Can Kids Take?

Barence writes "Are today's children facing technology overload, or simply gearing themselves up for life in a digital world? This article examines the effects of exposing children to technology at a young age. Researchers warn of the potential dangers of too much 'screen time,' pointing to alarming (some say scaremongering) research that suggests over-exposure leads to an increased risk of developing autism and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. Educators, meanwhile, highlight how technology can improve interaction between child and parent, and provide essential life skills, such as enhanced communication and multitasking. Parents are left with conflicting messages — but how much technology is too much technology for children?"

Comments

As a techie and a parent

[NewWorldDan]

I'm not terribly worried. My kid is 8. She's a gamer. She loves getting email from grandma. And if she spends too much time in front of the screen, she eventually will get up and find a friend to play with. She's had her own PC since she was 3. She also plays softball, soccer, and chess. Generally, she only resorts to the tv or computer when she can't find a friend. She's an only child, so this is somewhat of a concern, but so far, hasn't been a problem.

Re:As a techie and a parent

[tlhIngan]

That depends on whether they want it or not (and, as far as I know, social interaction isn't absolutely necessary for anyone). "Valuable" is subjective.

Being that humans are natually social beings (things like "cabin fever" erupt without it), it is essential.

Now, the question is whether face to face interaction is necessary to be social, or one can be social through technology (email, social sites, video/voice/text chat) remains to be answered. I'm guessing the answer is "everything in moderation". Some face to face is essential, because there will always be face to face interactions - even if it's just with the mailman for a package, and there may be times one is thrust into needing to interact, so proper behaviour and expectations in such situations is a necessity. (E.g., if you desire to have a family. Or maybe you need to ask for help with some task, or broke down at the side of the street and need to call a tow truck).

Those who don't seek social interaction are known as recluse, and there's a reason why there's a negative connotation associated with the term.

Hell, the act of reading and writing posts on /. is a social activity.

Re:As a techie and a parent

[Bucky24]

I can't cite anything to confirm this but I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that children NEED social interaction, regardless if they want it. Though playing any multiplayer game, being a chatroom, or posting in a thread on a forum probably all count as social interaction too. Just because they don't go outside doesn't mean they aren't socializing.

Kids is too broad

[spopepro]

Researchers have known for years that there are certain windows of brain development where learning is best supported, and how other activities aren't so helpful. Language acquisition and music have their sweet spot right around 3-6 years of age. It is likely that the skills that using tech best supports are much later in the development of childrens' minds (like logic, problem solving). It shouldn't be surprising that early childhood subjects only use tech as entertainment, and learn little from it. But children, of age 10 or so, can benefit greatly from having exposure to tech in an interactive manner. This is supported by places like Finland, where they don't teach "hard" subjects or tech in early childhood, but rather stress movement, creative play and social interaction at school, leaving other subjects for when they are most appropriate.

Many Factors

[CanHasDIY]

Made up ailments aside (Yes, I believe ADHD, along with a host of other "new diseases," are totally nonexistent and serve only to fatten the wallets of the healthcare industry fatcats by getting humans hooked on their products as early as possible, thus creating entire generations of addicted "customers"), one would have to weigh the individual pro's and con's, and come up with their own determination.

Personally, I would not let my kids (if I had any) spend their entire existence in front of some sort of screen, allowing corporations to raise my kids for me. Of course, when it comes to education I can see certain advantages over the technology (or lack thereof) used back in my day; kids could be reading the latest history as it is being made, as opposed to textbooks that still refer to Reagan as the sitting President. But again, that goes back to the whole 'corporate control' issue; who decides what goes into a history etextbook? Actual, educated historians, or the salespeople and marketers at Houghton-Mifflin?

Re:Many Factors

[0100010001010011]

I'd really be interested in hearing your "ADHD doesn't exist" argument. Because you've obviously never dealt with anyone with it and obviously don't have it yourself.

I find the suggestion that computer time 'causes' ADHD laughable because it's a difference in brain chemistry. Amphetamines calm us down. I met a guy that when he was 'up' would take a small hit of meth and sit down and paint. Alcohol makes me hyper. Amphetamines settle me down. Long before there was a computer in our house my mom knew she had to watch what she gave me.

The main argument against ADHD is "Well duh. I can obviously pay attention to stuff I like." Yes. I can easily app attention to something I like. I can go into a piece of code or a project and come out 12 hours later having not moved, eaten or done anything but what I threw my self into. The problem with the ADHD brain is you can't relax.

Since this is /., I'll probably catch some trollols "OMG U TUCH GURL!" But this is the most apt example I can come up with: If I'm giving a back massage or concentrating on actually DOING something. I can pay attention no problem. The problem comes when it's my turn to relax. It doesn't happen. Sure the return back massage feels great but, what was that last piece of code I was working on How od you calculate the sum of squares in a graeco-latin experiment design I wonder how I can implement that on my TI-89. I wonder if there is anything like this matlab function in the TI-89. I'll probably have to write my own. TI-89 what a shitty calculator. It came out in 1998 In 1998 my cellphone sucked and my android does so much more Why doesn't TI update their product line. Oh crap getting back massage try to relax, relax, why can't I relax, oh yeah that stats test. Stats is such an easy class what class am I taking next semester. Next semester do I have enough money to cover it. All in the span of a minute or two.

Cleaning the house doesn't get done because my mind jumps like that. "Oh, this be longs in the garage" Go to the garage. Start to put it away and find in the garage that needs to go somewhere. Eventually bouncing around the entire house doing 'nothing' and putting away small stuff.

If I'm with my girlfriend and we're talking about something in the car I can be 5-10 subjects away when I break the silence a minute later and say something and get some odd looks. Because she assumes we're still talking about the one thing we were talking about or something very similar. Hell in the time it's taken me to finally write this post I've opened 20 Fark tabs, read those topics. Started responses in those threads. Opened a few XBMC Forum threads. Put those in another window. Checked my bank statements and still have 2 dozen tabs open. Put the Chili in the fridge. Found something in the fridge I wanted to reheat. Put it in the microwave. Got distracted waiting for it to finish and started laundry.

When I'm on my meds it's a noticeable difference. I'll start in one corner of a room and knock it out like it's nothing. I'll write posts in one response. I can sit down and do ONE thing to completion or near completion. And I didn't have a computer in the house until High School. I made it through college all on my own. I finally went to the family doctor at 27 and got on Welbutrin. It's not an amphetamine and they're not really sure why it works for ADHD, but I can tell you it's made a big difference in my life at home and at work.

So fuck you and everyone else who thinks its made up. Why not go around the old folks home and yell at the alzheimers patients about their 'made up disease'

Re:Many Factors

[Xaria]

I support the above post.

I have a six year old son with ADHD, and sadly I had no choice but to put him on medication. Do I like it? No, of course not. Was it the right choice? I definitely believe so. He was failing PREP. Yes ... the very first year of school, and he was failing because he couldn't focus. He was also highly disruptive in class and ended up spending several hours per week in the school office. However, all the teachers love him because he's a very sweet little boy (their words, not mine). A lot of people believe that ADHD medication (such as Ritalin) is a sedative - it's not, it's a stimulant. It's equivalent to a couple of cups of strong coffee. The problem is that people with ADHD have had their brains develop such that they cannot focus on certain inputs to the exclusion of others as most people can. Try standing in the middle of a room at a party or a night club, and talk to the person with you. Most people can manage it. Someone with ADHD and no medication finds it incredibly difficult to remain focused on the conversation, because they can also hear the other conversations in the room, and the music, and the person clinking a glass together in the neighbouring kitchen. All at once, and without the inherent ability to exclude unwanted inputs. The purpose of Ritalin is to speed up the brain so that the ADHD person can get all those inputs and actually process them.

It's actually genetic. My brother has ADD too. He's a successful masseuse now because it's a single task, in a quiet room, that can keep his attention. Don't ever ask him to hold a ladder for you because he'll wander off to look at a butterfly by the time you get to the top (yep, this actually happened when he was 21).

Autism seems to be related, though they don't know how. I have an autistic child too, and that's a whole other ballgame. But just because you are lucky enough to have a "typical" brain which can't even CONCEIVE of these different mental pathways, doesn't mean that these conditions don't exist. They can't conceive of what it's like for you either. All they know is that people are incredibly intolerant of what is - to them - perfectly normal.

Having said all that, I have to be very careful of their technology input, especially since autistic minds can struggle to differentiate from what they see on TV and what is actually real. They probably watch more TV and play more computer games than they should, but to be honest that's better for them than a mother having a nervous breakdown. I am strict about what they are allowed to watch though. Most children's TV is completely out. Ben 10? Forget it. Documentaries? Go for your life. They love things like Dirty Jobs and Mythbusters. My six year old probably beat you playing Starcraft 2 last night. ;) It encourages keeping track of various things and strategising.

Re:Overloaded or Preparing for Future? Neither!

[MozeeToby]

My single concern is that there's lots of research that says the best thing kids can do to improve success later on in life is what is known as "undirected play" (a.k.a. recess). I doubt the play has to be physical in nature, but I suspect to see the benefits you want activities that allow kids to decide on their own (or as a group) who to play with, how to play, where to play, and what the rules are. These are not things that today's games are generally good at, ironically and especially true in the 'kids' games genres.

TV is the worst..

[bmajik]

On the occasions where my 4 year old is somewhere that he watches TV, the way he looks and acts while doing it just makes my heart sink.

He doesn't move. He is completely fixated on the screen. He needs me to make several attempts before his attention is diverted from the screen. He can look away breifly to talk to you but is trying to glance back at the screen.

We have no TV service and no occasion for him to watch TV. We do have a small handful of movies we let him watch occasionally.

One thing that he enjoys and that we let him do (usually one or two days a week) is watch the "Mighty Machines" movies, some of which you can stream off netflix. These are at least modestly interesting, as he is very interested in machines of all types.

Another thing we do together is watch youtube videos of things hes interested in. Whether its trains or rockets or consturction equipment or car racing -- theres always something your child is interested in and usually a youtube video of it. But that is a two-person activity -- you and your child can ask questions about what you are watching, pause, replay, etc.

The best thing you can do for your kids is read to them constantly, in an interactive way From an early age. Ask them what things are in books they know. Ask them more questions about the world their books create.

Listen to the questions they ask. Never tell them to shut up when they are asking questions.

When you say "I don't know", make sure you control your tone. Your tone should say "I don't know the answer to that, but now that you mention it, I'm curious too!" instead of "your question isn't important enough to answer"

My 4 year old is an excellent reader, quite good at adding, counting by intervals, subtraction, etc. He likes to play "Angry Birds" on my wifes phone, although we limit that quite heavily. He knows how to login to my desktop machine, start up mspaint, start up wordpad, etc. He has some "Jumpstart" edu-games that he can play by himself.

We limit how much computer time he gets --- even when it is educational software.

I don't think anything (Besides normal TV) is intrinsically bad for kids in reasonable amounts. What parents should NOT do is use technology to babysit. What parents and kids benefit from is a variety of different experiences, all in reasonable duration and frequency.

Re:TV is the worst..

[bmajik]

I watched a lot of TV when I was a kid. I mean, it didn't kill me or anything like that. But if I think about it, it was mostly about passing time.

The first few years of your child's life are the most critical for determining what kind of person they will be. Spend them wisely.

Re:Overloaded or Preparing for Future? Neither!

[GrpA]

Actually, being online helped my child *with Autism*...

The computer provides a safe and effective way for him to interact with other people and stimulate his mind. Having access to a computer at all times since he was about 3 has been a huge help to him and is one of the reason he is now diagnosed as "no longer needing assistance". It has taught him to spell well and helped him with communication skills which was an area in which he was seriously affected.

The people behind this research seem to have an agenda to push and the article does not examine any links between autism and technology at all - it just says technology causes it...

I'm surprised the magazine behind the OP printed these views at all. I guess even PC magazines have reached "Tabloid" status in the UK. :(

GrpA

Eye troubles

[smellsofbikes]

My wife is a vision therapist. She is seeing lots of kids come in who have trouble reading, playing sports that involve catching, and similar issues. When you're young your brain is really malleable but what it sees is what it expects as normal. When kids' eyes are constantly focussing on small high-resolution screens just a short distance from their faces, their brains consider that normal and adapt to that, meaning the kids have trouble, later on, with easily getting distant images to fuse. It's not like their eyes are crossed, but they do have to work harder, in some cases a lot harder, to maintain distance vision. She gets lots of kids who are considered slow learners or who "just hate reading" and after 12 weeks or so of visual training, suddenly they can catch balls easily, are reading at their grade level, and are enjoying reading.

False Correlation

[Zaldarr]

A part of this I think stems from the ideas expressed in the above comments about successive generations of parents being all up in arms about 'the new rock and roll', but I think it might just be that children are just getting stupider and people are latching onto technology as an excuse. I'm a child of the early 90's, (yes, a whippersnapper) and the amount of stupidity displayed by my generation never ceases to amaze and depress. I graduated from high school this year, and I can tell you as a statistical fact that half of the year failed mathematics and English miserably - and in the medium level classes too, not just the hard ones. As I have passed through high school I have assessed it's methods of teaching (because I want to learn dammit) and I judged it to be far below par. The culture amongst the students is of mutual congratulatory failure and the vast majority of the teachers are simply riding it out until they hit retirement. Instead of latching onto technology as a scapegoat, it would be far better to tear down the existing system and restructure education from the ground up.