Argument Essay

James Flanders

Professor Goff

English 1010

11 August 2014

Pros and Cons of Technology Use by Children

There is a great concern about the long term effects multi-media has, especially the internet and gaming, on children and the society overall. It is my belief that multi-media is potentially harmful for children unless used appropriately and in moderation.

According to a New York Times article in January of 2010, “If Your Kids Are Awake, They’re Probably Online,” the average young American, ages 8-18, spends over 7 ½ hours a day using technology devices. Many of them are multitasking with these technology devices packing in an astonishing average of 11 hours of media contact into those 7 1/2 hours. Further, the authors of the study did not include the combined two hours of texting and talking on a cell phone because it’s not considered by them as media use. Subsequently, children’s offline activities are being robbed by technology due to constant immersion in technology.

Ten years ago Korea turned its economy around by focusing on digital technology. As a result, 90% of Korean children use the internet in their daily lives. South Korea is known for its legendary internet cafes, called "PC bangs” which offer 24 hours of internet access to children. “South Korea has become one of the first countries to confront the fallout of the digital revolution” (Frontline, Digital Nation). An extreme example of this is when a South Korean man killed his infant son in order to play video games at an internet café (Reuters).  This demonstrates an impact on society where children are being neglected by parents or they themselves are becoming addicted and in turn may neglect their own children as adults. As a defense paralegal I personally saw the effects of internet addiction in my client’s lives and how their children were neglected. Often these very young children were left to fend for themselves with no adult supervision. My boss and I struggled to understand this phenomenon.

One of the major impacts of the use of multimedia is health. In South Korea children have reported health issues associated with computer over use while at Internet rescue camps like eye strain and ear complications (Frontline, Digital Nation).  Excessive multimedia is contributing to obesity.  In America, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (Childhood Overweight and Obesity) indicated obesity affects 17% of all children the United States. This rate is triple from the previous generation. According to the CDC technology is one of the contributing factors:

Children 8—18 years of age spend an average of 7.5 hours a day using entertainment media, including TV, computers, video games, cell phones, and movies. Of those 7.5 hours, about 4.5 hours is dedicated to viewing TV. Eighty-three percent of children from 6 months to less than 6 years of age view TV or videos about 1 hour and 57 minutes a day. TV viewing is a contributing factor to childhood obesity because it may take away from the time children spend in physical activities; lead to increased energy intake through snacking and eating meals in front of the TV; and, influence children to make unhealthy food choices through exposure to food advertisements (CDC). 

 It is well known that obesity contributes to high cholesterol, high blood pressure, heart disease, stroke, type II diabetes, kidney disease and joint issues.  These health issues are not longer confined to older adults. This also demonstrates another impact on society where health care costs are climbing higher and higher.

Another rising cost in society is in education. This is not only a monetary cost but an educational cost as well. Heavy multimedia user’s grades are affected and studies have shown multitaskers are less efficient in their schoolwork. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation study, there is a correlation between multimedia use and grades. Children who are heavy multimedia users reported grades of “C” or lower (Rideout).  One such example would be from the Digital Nation show where over the last year, a student named Young-il dropped from the top half of his class to the bottom. He indicated he played 7-8 hours of online games and all night on the weekends. When it comes to multitasking, Prof. Sherry Turkle who teaches at MIT said the following:

I teach the most brilliant students in the world. But they have done themselves a disservice by drinking the Kool-Aid and believing that a multitasking learning environment will serve their best purposes. There really are important things you cannot think about unless it's still and you're only thinking about one thing at a time. There are just some things that are not amenable to being thought about in conjunction with 15 other things. (Frontline, Digital Nation)

I learned in my Speech class, to be a mindful listener is to be 100% attentive. This cannot be done with multitasking. Professor Clifford Nass from Standford University conducted a study demonstrating that the brain can’t multitask. The brain is shifting gears from task to task rather than handling them simultaneously as it does, so it becomes less efficient. One such study participant thought his multitasking was great, but it turned out that was not the case at all. Further, other students confirmed constant interruptions from multitasking affected their writing (Frontline, Digital Nation).

Not only multitasking with technology affects students’ ability to learn, it also impacts attention spans. A PewResearch Internet Project surveyed nearly 2,500 teachers and found that 87% believe new technologies are creating an "easily distracted generation with short attention spans" and 64% say today's digital technologies "do more to distract students than to help them academically" (Purcell).  I have seen the effects of the distraction with the younger generation of students who grew up in the technology evolution. These students were distracted by multimedia such as cell phones and computers. I witnessed one student answer a call in class in the middle of instruction. How could they possible learn when they are focused on a text message rather than the instructor? A New York Times article stated the following, “Researchers say the lure of these technologies, while it affects adults too, is particularly powerful for young people. The risk, they say, is that developing brains can become more easily habituated than adult brains to constantly switching tasks — and less able to sustain attention” (Richtel).

Despite the negative impact technology can have on society, there are positive aspects. Game systems such as Nintendo Wii are being used in physical therapy. The John Hopkins Institute has shown, though no substitute for exercise, video games can be an effective tool for therapy. “ In one study, Robbins reported that the virtual reality aspect of gaming – which allows individuals to perform tasks they are unable to perform in real life – proved a useful tool in neuro-rehabilitation of cerebral palsy and stroke patients” (Dev Med Child Neurol 2005;47:628-35; Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2005;86:2218-23).  I have used the Wii in my own home for family activities and as an exercise tool for my children. Games requiring multiple players, when used moderation, has created family bonding time.

There are also games on my home computer that are played for educational purposes. My children use the computer to play games for educational benefits. There are many countries that see these benefits as well: “For children aged 2-8, carefully chosen TV programs, movies and computer games offer many developmental and social benefits. In addition to these media, social networking sites can have social benefits for teenagers” (Raising Children Network). One of the social benefits I used in my life is the ability to communicate with my children while I was deployed. Social media has also kept me in contact with my family that lives in the Netherlands. Multimedia can also help children with learning disabilities. One such project conducted with children with Autism or Down ’s Syndrome showed the learning benefits in multimedia systems (Khan).

Where is the balance in the negative and positive aspects of technology and children? As the availability of technology expands, families and educators need to address these issues before they become societal problems. With a safe and balanced approach to technology, society can harness technology’s awesome potential while protecting ourselves and our loved ones from its potentially devastating ill effects. As a society, we generally don’t allow children to drive a car until they are old enough to be responsible and able to follow the rules designed to keep them safe on the road. But even a young child can, with a few small clicks, unintentionally steer a computer or a smartphone app onto an inappropriate website. They can also steer themselves into distractions (LDS.org).

Along with safety, boundaries need to be set such as limiting children’s time spent using technology. No filter software or hardware is foolproof in setting boundaries. In the Digital Nation show, students online activities are were monitored and some children were still able to get around blocking software. There is no substitute for parental and educator supervision:

It takes careful monitoring to make sure we’re not allowing our technology use to numb our minds and consume much of the precious time. . . An important element of parenting in the digital age is helping children establish firm limits for digital use. Children also need guidance in learning to wisely balance digital activities with reading, outdoor activities, physical exercise, creative play, service, work, and time with family. (LDS.org)

Along with teaching balance, parents and educators need to teach children critical thinking and how to spot fallacies on the net.  They need to learn not to take anything at face value.  Brent Vasicek demonstrated this concept for his fifth grade class by using the following tactics: 

•I ask the students, "What would you do if a substance that caused thousands of deaths each year was found in your neighborhood?" I pause as they debate their favorite solutions to the problem.

•"What if it was found in your home?" I pause again as the emotions are cranked up a notch.

•I then ask them to go to this Web site that discusses banning dihydrogen monoxide (DHMO) (aka water). I read some of it to them. I let them read and share facts with each other. The facts are true, but they don't realize that this one-sided story is manipulating them.

 •"What if I told you this substance was found in our school today?"

•I then send them to this more professional looking DHMO Web site to gain credibility.

•"What if I told you that our principal purposely has this substance pumped into our classroom?"

 •We visit one last DHMO Web site.

 •I pop open a water bottle and drink it. I lick my lips and say, "Ahhhh, this is good stuff. Why would you ever want to ban it?"

•We discuss how we were fooled into banning water (facts, data, professional looking Web sites, multiple sources).  We discuss phrases like "two sides to every story." We discuss the importance of using our brains. And the dangers of the Internet.

Brent further reinforced this concept to see if the student really understood by having a second and third lesson to follow up.

Technology has changed the way society educates and the way it communicates. Technology use has changed from the thing one does to the way one lives. Unfortunately, current studies on the effects on society cannot keep up with the digital revolution (Frontline, Digital Nation). More studies are needed to keep multimedia as an effective tool rather than a destructive one. The American society may face the same fallout as Korea.

Work Cited

"Benefits of media for children and teenagers." Raising children network. 2006. Web. 5 Aug 2014. <http://raisingchildren.net.au/articles/media_benefits.html>.

Frontline, "Digital Nation-Life on the Virtual Frontier." PBS.org. PBS, 2 Feb 2010. Web. 8 Aug 2014. <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/digitalnation/etc/script.html>.

Khan, Tariq M. "The effects of multimedia learning on children with different special educational needs." Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2.2 (2010): 4341–4345. Web. 1 Aug. 2014. <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042810007305>.

Lewin, Tamar. "If Your Kids Are Awake, They’re Probably Online." The New York Times 20 Jan. 2010Nytimes Web. 1 Aug. 2014. <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/20/education/20wired.html?scp=3&sq=tv%20obesity&st=cse>.

"Childhood Overweight and Obesity." Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. CDC, Web. 7 Aug 2014. <http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/childhood/index.html>.

Pinborough, Jan. "Keeping Safe and Balanced in a Google-YouTube-Twitter-Facebook-iEverything World." LDS.org. LDS, Web. 10 Aug 2014. <http://overcomingpornography.org/individuals/keeping-safe-and-balanced-in-a-google-youtube-twitter-facebook-ieverything-world?lang=eng>.

Purcell Ph.D., Kristen , Lee Rainie, Alan Heaps, Judy Buchanan, Linda Friedrich, Amanda Jacklin, Clara Chen and Kathryn Zickuhr. "How Teens Do Research in the Digital World." PewResearch Internet Project. (2012): 1-7. Web. 1 Aug. 2014. <http://www.pewinternet.org/2012/11/01/how-teens-do-research-in-the-digital-world/>.

Reuters. "South Korean online gamer accused of murdering infant son to keep playing." MSN News 15 Apr. 2014MSN News. Web 4 Aug. 2014. <http://news.msn.com/crime-justice/south-korean-online-gamer-accused-of-murdering-infant-son-to-keep-playing>.

Rideout, M.A., Victoria J., Ulla G. Foehr, Ph.D. and Donald F. Roberts, Ph.D.. "Generation M2." Media in the Live of 8- to 18-Year-Olds. (a Kaiser Family Foundation study) (2010): 1-85. Print

Richtel, Matt. "Growing Up Digital, Wired for Distraction." The New York Times [New York City] 21 Nov. 2010Nytimes. Web. 4 Aug. 2014 <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/21/technology/21brain.html?pagewanted=all&_r=2&>.

Vasicek , Brent. "Danger on the Internet: A Lesson in Critical Thinking." Scholastic.com. Scholastic, Web. 10 Aug 2014. <http://www.scholastic.com/teachers/classroom_solutions/2011/02/danger-on-the-internet-a-lesson-in-critical-thinking>.