Effects of Technology on Children's Development Flashcards
In 2017 is Prensky’s digital natives/immigrants distinction still relevant?
Intro: Prensky, 2001 - definition of each, these differences highlights differences in information-processing - was important at the time as technology was quickly becoming major - tech now ubiquitous - Ofcom, 2012 - constant changing suggests definition no longer relevant
Main Body:
yes relevant - conflict between older and younger - in workforce and education - leads to real processing differences - i.e. in relationships, institutions and how they access info
Livingstone and Helsper, 2007 - age is not most important factor, SES more important - age less important as more people growing up with tech - also matter of access (product of cultural capital)
The Isthmus Project, 2007-2009 - age now irrelevant, use visitors/residents - base on level of engagement - much more important - in particular as tech now used for different aspects (social vs creative) so differences in ability to use tech
Definition implies empowerment - Bennett, 2000 challenges this notion - highlighted by Pea et al., 2012
Conclusion: Prensky is no longer relevant, other factors more important than age
Critically assess whether new technologies have changed the way children learn
Intro: technology now ubiquitous - Prensky, 2001 highlights that people are now natives to tech - now normal - Ofcom, 2012 - increasing use of tech has changed how children learn - especially through computers, TUIs and VRs
Main Body:
schools use computers more to facilitate learning - to facilitate sharing and aiding social interaction (Vygotsky, children need this) - Abnett et al., 2001
also use VRs to enable children to learn in ways they previously could not - those with disabilities in particular - helps spatial interaction - Orencas, 1989 (repeated exposure to area helps creation of field map) - use of VR enables those with disabilities to create this map - Chapuis et al., 1987 - Wilson et al., 1996 demonstrates that the use of VR can transfer training
Conclusion: new technologies have improved children’s learning in some cases - in particular for those with physical disabilities as they can now begin to develop similar abilities to able-bodied children
Are teenagers technologically empowered?
Intro: tech ubiquitous - surrounded from birth normal - O’Keefe and Pearson, 2011 (sites offer portal for entertainment and communication) studies showing increasingly negative effects of tech on development
Main Body:
tech on incline - 80s research already began highlighting negatives - Harrison and Williams, 1986
Prensky, 2001 - tries to challenge with natives sounding positive - but Bennett, 2007 - this is not empowerment because not used for increasing skills
Pea et al., 2012 - highlights major negative aspects for teens - definitely not empowered - note that increasing online communication is facilitating faceless bullying (cyber) - AntiBullyingPro, 2015 - disempowerment occurs despite increased security/privacy - Emanuel and Stanton-Fraser, 2014
Addiction also now major problem - Kuss and Griffiths, 2011 - technology dis-empowers teens
Conclusion: technology does not empower
Prensky, 2001
digital natives and immigrants
born after 1980 = native
young people think and process information differently from predecessors
Ofcom, 2012
87% 5-7 y/o are known to use the internet
this has risen from 68% in 2007
Livingstone and Helsper, 2007
factors such as SES make a bigger distinction between whether someone is a digital native or not
SES affects what technology we use
The Isthmus Project, 2007-2009
coins terms digital residents and visitors
moves away from age of user
instead focuses on level of engagement (breadth of use, experience, self-efficacy and education)
creates more nuanced and complex framework
Bennett, 2007
young people that use tech are not empowered
technologies used mainly for communication with peers and accessing online sites
don’t use tech for creative pursuits or cognitive ones
Pea et al., 2012
3,461 North American girls aged 8-12
looked at relationship between social well-being and media use
looked at video/videogames/music/homework/posting on socialmedia/IM/face-to-face comm
negative social well-being was positively associated with levels of uses of media central to interpersonal communication
negative effect of technology
Abnett et al., 2001
children 6-7 y/o
using one mouse between two children facilitated more collaborative behaviour
compromise occurred when conflicting
does produce mixed behaviours inc. domination of behaviours
Orencas, 1989
children with physical disabilities significantly worse at spatial tasks
repeated exposure to environments leads to something like a field map in the brain
with mobility problems this cannot develop
Chapuis et al., 1987
24 able bodied and 34 physically disabled children
Physically disabled split into two groups - less or more mobile when younger
tasks with rooms connected by pathways
children explored maze and then tested on ability to take shortcuts
mobile group best, followed by more mobile when younger, followed by less mobile when younger
suggests need to be able to develop internal representations to be able to spatially navigate
Wilson et al., 1996
put VR into action
tested if VR could facilitate learning of these internal representations for those with physical disabilities
pps explored simulated building then went to real place and asked to point out how to get to various places
physical disability group were equally as good at pointing to not-directly visible landmarks
demonstrates that you can use VR as a way of transferring training
O’Keefe and Pearson, 2011
online sites provide a portal for entertainment and communication
Harrison and Williams, 1986
introduction of television into Canadian town saw decline in reading and creativity skills
