Chapter 4. Children, technology and teaching
Schools, and even early childhood educational institutions, are examining whether and how to incorporate information and communication technologies (ICT) into their learning environments. This chapter examines how these technologies can be used effectively for learning. It also discusses research on the impact of using these technologies – including television, video games and social media – on children’s developing brains and bodies.
A note regarding Israel
The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and under the the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The use of such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the West Bank under the terms of international law.
According to results from the 2015 cycle of the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), 95% of 15-year-old students, on average across OECD countries, have Internet access at home (OECD, 2017[1]). On a typical weekday, students spend more than two hours on line after school – an increase of 40 minutes since 2012 (OECD, 2017[1]). And children are “connected” in other places besides home. PISA 2012 data showed that, across OECD countries, 72% of students reported using computer technologies (desktops, laptops or tablets) at school (OECD, 2015[2]).
International trends are pointing to increases in use also among younger children (Hooft Graafland, 2018[3]). Some research suggests that preschoolers become familiar with digital devices before they are exposed to books (Brody, 2015[4]; Hopkins, Brookes and Green, 2013[5]).
Information and communication technology (ICT) can change the way children develop and learn. Not only schools, but also early childhood educational institutions are exploring ways to integrate ICT into learning environments. Some systems have already invested heavily in introducing ICT, while others have taken a more gradual approach. But the availability of ICT in educational institutions is only one aspect of this shift. Plans to expand access to technology in individual schools or educational institutions, entire districts or even whole countries need to take into account how these tools would be put to good use by both teachers and students in order to be effective.
Education systems need to re-evaluate their curricula and instructional systems, and teachers need to reassess their teaching styles, to ensure that ICT is used effectively to support learning and equip children with competencies that are important for the future. Linking the way children interact with ICT inside of school to the way they already use it outside of school could be the key to unlocking technology’s potential for learning.
The rise in children’s use of technology has also led to growing concern about how it affects children’s brains and their socio-emotional, cognitive and physical development. Policy makers in various countries have already set guidelines for children’s use of technology. This chapter draws on research from the OECD Centre for Educational Research and Innovation’s 21st-Century Children project to summarise some of those guidelines and their rationale. It also reviews the literature on the effects of technology use on children’s brain, and their cognitive, socio-emotional and physical development (Gottschalk, 2019[6]). The chapter also examines data from the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) and the OECD Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) related to the use of ICT at home and at school. The chapter ends with a look at the role of schools in supporting safe and responsible technology use (Hooft Graafland, 2018[3]), and a discussion of how education policy can address these issues.
Technology, learning and teaching
Technology can enable teachers and students to access specialised materials well beyond textbooks, in multiple formats and in ways that can bridge time and space. It can support new ways of teaching that focus on learners as active participants. There are good examples of technology enhancing experiential learning by supporting project- and enquiry-based teaching methods, facilitating hands-on activities and co-operative learning, and delivering formative real-time assessments. Teachers who “flip” their classrooms use class time for practice, group work and individual feedback, while asking students to watch or listen to lesson content at home. In doing so, they extend study time and individualise instruction. In flipped classrooms, technology is used as a means to reinforce pedagogical practice, but is not at the centre of the classroom experience (Bergmann and Sams, 2012[7]).
Technology can also compensate for space constraints. Virtual laboratories give students opportunities to design, conduct and learn from experiments, rather than just learning about them. Technology use in second-language instruction can give students access to native speakers who may not otherwise be available.
There are also interesting examples of technology supporting learning with interactive, non-linear courseware based on state-of-the-art instructional design, sophisticated software for experimentation and simulation, social media and educational games. These can be learning tools to develop 21st-century knowledge and skills. One teacher can now educate and inspire millions of learners and communicate their ideas to the whole world.
Perhaps the most distinguishing feature of technology is that it not only serves individual learners and educators, but it can build an ecosystem around learning that is predicated on collaboration. Technology can build communities of learners that make learning more social and more fun, recognising that collaboration enhances goal orientation, motivation, persistence and the development of effective learning strategies. Similarly, technology can build communities of teachers to share and enrich teaching resources and practices, and to collaborate on professional growth. It can help system leaders and governments develop and share best practice around curriculum design, policy and pedagogy.
That said, even where technology is used in classrooms, its impact on student performance is still mixed, at best. In 2015, PISA measured students’ digital literacy, and the frequency and intensity with which students use computers at school. Students who use computers moderately at school tend to have somewhat better learning outcomes than students who use computers rarely. But students who use computers frequently at school do a lot worse in most learning outcomes, even after accounting for socio-economic background and student demographics.
Equally important, according to PISA 2015 data (Figure 4.1), technology used in the classroom still tends to emulate more traditional activities that could take place without digital devices. Browsing the Internet for schoolwork (48% of students across OECD countries reported doing this at least once a week) and chatting on line at school (the most rapidly growing activity, with a 24 percentage-point increase since 2012, on average across OECD countries) are activities that could otherwise be accomplished without technology, through more traditional research and discussion. Meanwhile, an average of just 15% of students reported doing simulations on computers at school – a technology-specific activity – at least once a week.
Hattie and Yates (2013[8]) explain that the successful use of computer-assisted instruction shares several characteristics with successful learning interventions that are not technology based: it extends study time and practice; it allows students to assume greater control over the learning situation (e.g. by individualising the pace with which new material is introduced); and it can support collaborative learning. In other words, the science of learning in a technology-rich world is similar to that in the analogue world. Learning demands time, and is most effective when it responds to a personal need or goal, and when it can be socially enhanced.
At the same time, teachers need to have a sense of ownership over technology. This means that technology should not only support teaching but also help teachers build on their pedagogical expertise (Paniagua and Istance, 2018[9]).
PISA data show that teachers’ use of digital devices is related to the demands of the curriculum and to their own attitudes. In mathematics, teachers who ask students to work on real-world problems use computers most. But pedagogical knowledge and diversification of instruction are also important. Teachers who are most inclined towards, and better prepared for, student-oriented practices, such as group work, individualised learning, and project work, are more likely to use digital resources (OECD, 2015[2]).
Research also shows that participation in professional development activities that involve individual or collaborative research, or a network of teachers, is associated with a greater likelihood that a teacher will more frequently use ICT for students’ work. In addition, teachers who report a positive disciplinary classroom climate are more likely to use ICT in their teaching. It is possible that a positive classroom climate is more conducive to the use of ICT (e.g. because of fewer disruptive students) or that the use of ICT helps to ameliorate classroom climate (e.g. because students enjoy interacting with technology). Teachers who hold constructivist beliefs about their job (i.e. those who see themselves as facilitators of students’ own enquiry, or see thinking and reasoning as more important than specific curriculum content) are also more likely to use ICT and other active teaching techniques. This may be because ICT can enable students to pursue knowledge in more independent ways than traditional teaching, in line with the constructivist approach.
Information and communication technologies (ICTs) can provide teachers with the tools to support learning and can help students acquire the digital skills needed for the 21st century. However, the evidence of the effects of digital technologies in the classroom is not conclusive, especially when ICTs are combined with particular teaching practices (Bulman and Farlie, 2016[10]; Falck, Mang and Woessman, 2018[11]; Rodrigues and Biagi, 2017[12]).
In PISA 2015, students were asked to report on the availability and use of ICTs at school. Answers to the questions were then combined to construct two continuous composite indicators. These indicators were then examined in much the same way as the interaction between school climate and enquiry-based science teaching (EBST) was analysed. In addition to observed and unobserved school characteristics, the regressions included student profile and student-reported exposure to EBST, and the interaction between EBST and the two ICT indices.
The results of the regressions show the expected negative association between EBST and science performance. The interaction between EBST and availability of ICT resources in school is non-significant in almost all countries (except Bulgaria and Lithuania, where it is positive and significant, but weak). However, the interaction between EBST and the use of ICT resources is positive and significant in eight countries: Brazil, Bulgaria, the Dominican Republic, France, Lithuania, Poland, Slovenia and Uruguay. In all of these countries the association is weak, and varies between a 5 and 10 score-point change.
There is no clear and overwhelming evidence that EBST would be positively associated with science performance if ICTs are available and used at school to support this teaching practice. The results also suggest that in a few countries, using ICT resources to support learning is more important than just their availability.
Source: Mostafa, T., A. Echazarra and H. Guillou (2018), “The science of teaching science: An exploration of science teaching practices in PISA 2015”, OECD Education Working Papers, https://doi.org/10.1787/f5bd9e57-en
Findings from the 2013 OECD Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) show that about 60% of teachers report moderate or high development needs in ICT skills for teaching. This makes it the most commonly reported area for development after teaching students with special needs. In addition, over 56% of teachers report moderate or high development needs with the use of new technologies in the work place. This differs across countries, as Figure 4.2 illustrates. Around 55% of teachers who took part in TALIS reported participating in professional development activities relating to ICT skills for teaching; and about 40% of teachers reported participating in professional development courses in new technologies in the workplace. Teachers reported a positive impact on their teaching as a result of participating in these courses.
Technology, the brain, cognition and well-being
Young people today are more “connected” than ever. In 2017, three out of four Internet users (aged 16 to 74) used the Internet daily or almost every day (OECD, 2019[13]). Digital engagement is generally higher among younger adults than older adults, although the differences today are less pronounced than ten years ago. In 2015, a typical 15-year-old from an OECD country had been using the Internet since the age of 10 and spent more than two hours every weekday on line after school, and more than three hours every weekend day (OECD, 2017[1]). PISA defines “extreme Internet users” as those who spend more than six hours per day on line; 26% of students in OECD countries fall into this category.
Young people have shown preferences for using the Internet for gaming, chatting and social networking (Durkee, 2012[14]). Today, children use mostly televisions and tablets, although the media landscape is becoming more complex. Children are watching less television than before, with an increase in the use of television services, such as Netflix and Amazon Prime, while YouTube is quickly becoming the viewing platform of choice, especially for 8-11 year-olds (Ofcom, 2019[15]). In addition to teenagers, there has been a significant increase in Internet usage among young children (aged 0-8) (Hooft Graafland, 2018[3]). In the United Kingdom, the most recent figures show that over 50% of children aged 3-4 go on line for at least 9 hours per week, and 82% of 5-7 year-olds spend at least 9.5 hours per week on line (Ofcom, 2019[15]).
These findings may be significant because of the “plasticity”, or experience-dependent changes, of developing brains. The brain essentially changes in response to experiences, and childhood is a period of high brain plasticity. In the literature, the use of technology has been associated with both transient changes, i.e. changes in mood or arousal, and with long-term alterations in the brain or behaviour (Bavelier, Green and Dye, 2010[16]); see Gottschalk (2019[6]) for the full review.
The effects of technology may depend on factors such as the type of technology used and what it is used for (Bavelier, Green and Dye, 2010[16]). Children may use computers during class time, cell phones to keep in contact with friends, a tablet to do schoolwork in the evening, and then watch an hour of television with their families to unwind. This can add up to many hours over the course of the day. Therefore, understanding how and why technology is used, and the variety of devices children choose, can help determine whether limits to screen time are useful and how they should be set.
Many groups concerned with children’s health, including governments and medical societies, advocate for partially or fully limiting screen time for children and adolescents. For example, the American Association of Pediatrics, a prominent international voice in child health, publishes guidelines for screen time for children age 0 to 18, the most recent of which were made available in 2016. These guidelines include a number of provisions, such as avoiding screens for children under 18 months (except for video chatting), and limiting to one hour per day high-quality programming for children up to age 5 (Table 4.1).
Many countries have published similar guidelines for parents and guardians suggesting limits to screen time and “best practices”. Often, these are included as components of guidelines addressing the risks to children of a sedentary lifestyle, thus they reflect concerns about children’s physical well-being more than their emotional or social well-being. Other general recommendations include turning off devices when not in use, switching off screens an hour before bed, and designating times (i.e. while having dinner or driving) and locations (i.e. the bedroom) as media-free. Table 4.1 outlines a small sample of screen-use guidelines released in different OECD countries, from governments or research institutes.
As can be seen in Table 4.1, the approaches taken by countries range from a “zero-tolerance approach” – the carnet de santé released by the French Ministry of Health and Solidarity, for example, suggests not even placing a child younger than three in a room where there is a television on (Ministère des Solidarités et de la Santé, 2018[17]) – to a more nuanced approach that focuses on types of screen time and how they affect family life.
A recent example of the latter approach is the 2019 Guidelines issued by the UK Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (Viner, Davie and Firth, 2019[18]). These guidelines were based on a comprehensive review of the evidence on the effects of screen time on children’s physical and mental health. Given the lack of causal evidence linking screen time to negative child health, the guidelines focus on aspects of child well-being, such as online safety (i.e. from bullying, exploitation etc.) and access to inappropriate content. The main recommendation is that families negotiate screen time with children, based on the needs of the child and on which screens are in use and how they may or may not displace other health-related behaviours or social activities.
The guide poses four questions to be used by families to examine how they use screens. If families are satisfied with their responses, it is likely they are doing well regarding screen time. The questions are:
-
Is screen time in your household controlled?
-
Does screen use interfere with what your family wants to do?
-
Does screen use interfere with sleep?
-
Are you able to control snacking during screen time?
The guide finishes with a set of recommendations on how families can reduce screen time, if they feel the need. This includes protecting sleep, prioritising face-to-face interaction and being cognisant of parents’ media use, as children tend to learn by example.
Although there is a great deal of media attention on this issue, it is important to separate fact from fiction when considering the impact of technology on children. According to a recent report, the weight given to screen time in both public and scientific discourse is probably not merited, based on the available data (Orben and Przylbylski, 2019[19]). It is essential, then, to review the available research. Furthermore, many children report that controlling media time is becoming more difficult, although the majority (aged 12-15) consider they have struck an appropriate balance (Ofcom, 2019[15]). The following sections summarise the full review found in Gottschalk (2019[6]).
A note on brain plasticity
The brain is plastic, and changes based on one’s experiences. This plasticity is especially marked in the early years: research suggests rapid development and considerable plasticity in the brains of newborns through the first few years of life (Barkovich, 1988[20]). In addition, certain regions of the brain are more plastic than others, including the hippocampus, which is implicated in learning and memory (Bliss and Schoepfer, 2004[21]; Pastalkova, 2006[22]).
Childhood and adolescence are periods of rapid development and maturation. During the first three years of life, a child’s brain may create over one million new connections per second1 -- essential for the development of hearing, language and cognition (Center on the Developing Child, 2009[23]). These basic capacities create the foundation for higher-order functions, especially those formed in adolescence, as many neural networks underlying more complex activities, such as decision-making, mature during this time.
Structural and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI)2 studies have shown that these changes in function are accompanied by extensive structural alterations in the adolescent brain (Crone and Konjin, 2018[24]). Improvement of functions, such as attention and cognitive flexibility, for example, is likely a result of myelination and pruning (Luciana, 2013[25]; Paus, 2005[26]). Pruning refers to the selective elimination of synapses, which are initially overabundant in young brains. This process largely occurs throughout puberty and adolescence. The sensitive periods in early childhood and adolescence, when critical brain development and reorganisation occur, can be strongly influenced by experiences and environmental factors that can affect future functioning (Irwin, Siddiqi and Hertzman, 2007[27]; Petanjek, 2011[28]).
These sensitive periods used to be known as “critical periods”, as it was believed that they were windows of opportunity in brain development that, if missed, would lead to the loss or underdevelopment of critical abilities. However, research has demonstrated that development of language and visual processes, for example, once thought to occur only during the “critical periods” of early childhood, can occur outside of this window (Fuhrmann, Knoll and Blakemore, 2015[29]).
While it underlies learning, neuroplasticity is not an inherently good or bad thing. Outcomes vary, depending on the magnitude and location of changes taking place.
Measuring these changes and activation patterns can be difficult. For example, fMRI allows for the detection of brain activity as shown through changes in local cerebral blood flow and from changes in oxygenation concentration (Glover, 2011[30]). However, it does not clarify the neural mechanisms underlying certain functions (i.e. cognitive or behavioural functions) (Logothetis, 2008[31]). Brain imaging can give some insight into brain structure and activation patterns, but functional relevance is difficult to infer, and this type of research remains exploratory.
Impact of television on children: cognition and well-being
There is a relatively large body of literature exploring television and children, partly because television has been around for a long time. Researchers have explored the implications on verbal abilities, as well as cognitive, physical and emotional development. However, the quantity of research in this field outpaces the quality; many studies report very small effect sizes, are correlational in nature (they are unable to show causality), and there is much contradicting “evidence” presented even when analysing the same datasets. Thus, results in this domain must be interpreted with caution. This section provides an overview of some of the literature regarding television viewing and child outcomes, and some of its limitations.
Some research has linked viewing television for longer periods of time during childhood with attention problems in adolescence (Landhuis, 2007[32]), and suggests there may be modest adverse effects of watching television before the age of three on cognitive outcomes later in childhood (Zimmerman and Christakis, 2005[33]). However the research in this domain tends to be contradictory, and there is no clear impact (either positive or negative) of moderate television viewing (Foster and Watkins, 2010[34]). Some research has found no association with outcomes such as attention problems/hyperactivity, emotional symptoms, relationship problems and prosocial behaviour (behaviour intended to help other people, or benefit society generally), or with these outcomes and playing electronic games (Parkes, 2013[35]).
Results implicating television watching in the socio-emotional development of infants have also been inconsistent (Haughton, Aiken and Cheevers, 2015[36]). However, some of the literature points to more positive associations between watching television (in this case, educational programming) and children’s development, suggesting it may promote literacy, mathematics, problem-solving and science skills, and prosocial behaviour in preschool-aged children (see Evans Schmidt and Anderson, (2009[37]).
Some scholars cite an opportunity cost associated with time spent watching television rather than engaging in more “educational” activities. For example, time spent playing attention-training games versus watching popular children’s videos may contribute to improvements in executive attention and intelligence (Rueda, M. et al, 2005[38]).
Analyses of how children’s brains react to television are more scarce than those concerning cognitive or behavioural outcomes, and causality remains difficult to ascertain. Despite these limitations, some results indicate that children who frequently watch TV are likely to engage less in physical activity, which, in turn, may have an impact on the volume of certain brain regions (Takeuchi et al., 2013[39]). This research is limited, however, by its small samples; therefore it is not clear whether TV viewing directly causes the outcomes measured, and whether the results are generalisable. In addition, the functional relevance of volumetric changes in different brain regions is not always clear.
In sum, the effects of television viewing on children are not clear. If time spent watching television is time away from other activities, particularly those that are beneficial for children’s physical well-being, then there could be cause for concern. However, the evidence is mixed and there is no clear proof that moderate television watching displaces other activities essential for well-being or development.
On co-viewing
The benefits of “co-viewing” (i.e. when parents watch videos with children) are supported by a number of studies (see Gottschalk, (2019[6]), for an overview). While co-viewing with their parents or guardians, infants may pay more attention and potentially increase their ability to learn from video content (Barr et al., 2008[40]). This “scaffolding” suggests that parents pose questions, and give descriptions and labels during viewing (Barr et al., 2008[40]). But the extent of the cognitive outcomes associated with this practice is unclear.
Other cross-sectional research suggests that television watching, reading and physical activity when done with a caregiver every day is associated with higher linguistic and/or cognitive development than for children who engage in these activities only once or twice per week (Lee, Spence and Carson, 2017[41]). One conclusion here might be that, independent of the content of the activity, simply engaging in behaviours with a caregiver may be beneficial for child development (Lee, Spence and Carson, 2017[41]).
Another note about co-viewing, and parental mediation of screen content more generally, is that there is a deepening divide between socio-economically advantaged and disadvantaged families. Children whose parents are able to spend time both curating and mentoring screen time may reap more benefits than those in families with less financial resources and with parents who are less involved in daily activities (Canadian Paediatric Society, Digital Health Task Force, Ottawa, Ontario, 2017[42]). The equity dimension of television viewing has broader implications, especially if there is a relationship between cognitive outcomes and time spent watching television: children from disadvantaged backgrounds or with low-educated mothers tend to watch more television than children from advantaged backgrounds (Certain and Kahn, 2002[43]; Rideout and Hamel, 2006[44]).
“High-quality” programming: The quality vs. quantity debate
Not all television is created equal. While there is much content with little purpose beyond entertainment, educational programming does exist. There is not much research exploring brain-based outcomes of viewing educational television; but there is a relatively large body of research supporting the positive effects of educational programming on cognitive development in preschool-aged children (Anderson and Subrahmanyam, 2017[45]).
Some research suggests greater levels of school readiness (Anderson, 1998[46]; Anderson, D. et al, 2001[47]; Schmidt and Anderson, 2007[48]) and superior language development (Linebarger and Vaala, 2010[49]; Linebarger and Walker, 2005[50]; Linebarger and Piotrowski, 2009[51]) among preschoolers who watched Sesame Street regularly. Other “educational” shows have also been linked to better language use and vocabulary development (Linebarger and Walker, 2005[50]).
Engaging with educational content may be especially beneficial for children from disadvantaged and middle-class families, not only for their vocabulary, but also for their performance in reading and mathematics tests, and overall school readiness (Wright et al., 2001[52]). The benefits of engaging with this type of content may also last beyond early childhood. For example, some research has noted a positive relationship between viewing educational/informative television programmes during preschool years and both high school achievement and time spent reading books for leisure (Anderson, D. et al, 2001[47]).
A systematic review of the literature exploring the association between television viewing and outcomes such as academic performance, language and play, finds that the relationship between television and children’s development is complex, and highlights the potential importance of individual characteristics, including social context and family factors. The review suggests that watching high-quality content is associated with academic skills and is predictive of future academic performance, whereas watching television during infancy may be detrimental to play and language development (Kostyrka-Allchorne, Cooper and Simpson, 2017[53]). It is unclear whether some of these interactions are long-lasting. In general, the nature of this type of research does not allow for causal inferences.
Despite these results, it is important to keep in mind the notion of the “video deficit”, which posits that infants and toddlers do not learn as well from materials presented via video as they do from live sources (Anderson and Pempek, 2005[54]).
This video deficit may also affect language learning in infants during their first year of life, as viewing television before the age of two has some negative associations with language development and executive functions (Anderson and Subrahmanyam, 2017[45]). Live exposure, versus audio or video exposure, to foreign languages seems to have a stronger impact on the capacity to discern differences in phonetic units in languages (Kuhl, Tsao and Liu, 2003[55]).
In sum, there may be some benefits associated with engaging with child-tailored, educational content in terms of improved verbal abilities, cognitive development and neural maturity in children. However, the research also suggests that children learn better from live sources than from videos. This could also have implications for children from disadvantaged households or with working parents who have less time to spend with them. Watching television can perhaps be incorporated into a schedule filled with other health- and development-promoting habits, even for infants and young children. Limiting television viewing for children who do not exhibit problematic tendencies is perhaps unnecessary. But the evidence can be contradictory, and it is difficult to distinguish clear associations between screen-time habits and cognitive outcomes.
Effects of video games on the brain and executive functions
The literature on video gaming and children is much more recent than that on television; as a result it is also less conclusive. The majority of the research focuses on negative rather than positive outcomes (Granic, Lobel and Engels, 2014[56]), thereby providing a somewhat skewed view on the potential impact of video games on children. Providing a coherent and balanced view is important, especially as online gaming is becoming increasingly popular: three out of four of the 5-15 year-olds in the United Kingdom who play games do so on line (Ofcom, 2019[15]).
Positive findings include improved decision making (The IMAGEN Consortium, 2011[57]) and better procedural learning, i.e. acquiring new skills via practice (Pujol et al., 2016[58]). Action video games in particular (i.e. as distinguished from non-action video games by their speed, unpredictable stimuli and high sensory-motor load) have been linked to better reading outcomes for dyslexic children as well (Franceschini et al., 2017[59])). One study showed that even modest amounts of gaming have been associated with faster motor-response times (Pujol et al., 2016[58]).
Each of these individual findings would need to be supported with a more critical mass of evidence in order to be used to guide policy making; and these results would need to be considered in light of the concerns associated with excessive gaming. These concerns are widespread: “Internet Gaming Disorder” was recently included in the Appendix of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-V and as “Gaming disorder” in the draft of the 11th revision of the World Health Organization’s International Classification of Diseases. However, formal classification of these ideas as “disorders” is contentious in the scientific community (Turel et al., 2014[61]), especially as research in this domain is not robust enough to liken “Internet addiction” or “gaming addiction” to substance addictions (Weinstein and Lejoyeux, 2015[62]). In line with multiple research findings, terms such as “excessive Internet use” are suggested in order to avoid using medical classification or terminology (Smahel, 2012[63]; Kardfelt-Winther, 2017[64]) to describe children’s online habits (OECD, 2017[1]; OECD, 2018[65]).
Parents and educators often worry about the impact of gaming on educational attainment; but as with “educational television”, “educational gaming” might have positive effects on children. In general, there is a lack of strong evidence supporting the notion that video gaming affects education outcomes.
The literature in this domain is contradictory, and one of the biggest research challenges is accurately determining the amount of time spent gaming. This field, would benefit from more randomised-controlled trials, larger sample sizes, and more consistently reproducible findings. At present, all that can be said with certainty is that playing video games may have both positive and negative impacts on children, in part due to moderate versus more extreme use.
21st-century children and social media
Adolescents (and, to a lesser extent, children) in the 21st century use technology to interact with their peers. Since 1997, over 10 000 published journal articles have used the term “social media”, with experts in fields such as psychology, economics and sociology incorporating this topic into their research agendas (Meshi, Tamir and Heekeren, 2015[66]). There is a good reason for this: recent estimates suggest that over 90% of young people use social media both day and night (Duggan and Smith, 2014[67]).
Texting is a dominant form of daily communication among adolescents, as are media such as instant messaging, social-media platforms and video chatting (Lenhart, 2015[68]). There is evidence to suggest that children’s social relationships can be stimulated through digital technology and that moderate online communication has a positive relationship with the quality of friendship and social capital (for a review, see Kardefelt-Winther, (2017[64]).
There are differences in how young people use social media compared with older populations. As shown in Figure 4.3., in 2018, 35% of teenagers surveyed by the Pew Research Center in the United States reported that they use Snapchat most often, unlike their elders, who tend to favour Facebook (Pew Research Center, 2018[69]).
Despite the proliferation of research exploring social media use and the huge numbers of children subscribing to these platforms, empirical research on the impact of social media on the brain is scarce. In 2015, only seven published articles explored neurosciences and social media (Meshi, Tamir and Heekeren, 2015[66]). Furthermore, many studies focus on Facebook use; the literature exploring other social media used by 21st-century children, such as Snapchat and Instagram, is thin.
What is the effect of electronic communication on children’s interpersonal skills and well-being? Research has shifted over the past decades:
-
The displacement theory argues that online interaction replaces face-to-face interaction, which in turn leads to reduced social involvement and psychological well-being among children who use the Internet (Kraut, R. et al, 1998[73]). Although this theory received early support, more recent studies that highlight the positive effects of the Internet on children’s social capital have criticised the theory as simplistic.
-
The “rich get richer” theory states that children with more social skills and networks will benefit more from online communication than those without (Kraut, R. et al, 1998[73]; UNICEF, 2017[74]).
-
The social compensation hypothesis predicts that online communication benefits socially anxious and lonely children most as the Internet reduces social boundaries, thus facilitating making friends on line (Bonetti, Campbell and Gilmore, 2010[75]). Lonely teens are also more likely to use social networks to make new friends rather than maintaining existing friendships.
-
Finally, the stimulation hypothesis suggests that the impact of children’s online behaviour is mostly positive for all children and, in particular, that communication with existing friends is improved (UNICEF, 2017[74]; Valkenburg and Peter, 2007[76]; Miller and Morris, 2016[77]). A recent study, conducted among children in the United States, found a positive relation between children’s computer use and the number of friends they communicated with off line (Fairlie and Kalil, 2017[78]). Another study, using Health Behaviour in School-aged Children (HBSC) data across nine countries, showed that 11-15 year-olds who communicated more through electronic media reported greater life satisfaction. However, above a certain threshold this relationship became negative (Boniel-Nissim et al., 2014[79]).
Although the displacement theory no longer receives much support, there is no consensus among researchers. More long-term research is needed that also takes into account the type of electronic communication or social network.
Source: (Hooft Graafland, 2018[3]), “New technologies and 21st-century children: Recent trends and outcomes, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 179, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/e071a505-en.
In addition, most research focuses on adults, not children or young people. There is some research to suggest that the use of social media, especially at night, may be linked to poor sleep quality. It also may be linked to levels of anxiety and depression, although the direction of causality is not clear and the relationships can be weak. In one particular study, for example, associations were stronger between poor sleep quality and anxiety/depression, than between media use and anxiety/depression) (Woods and Scott, 2016[70]).
Young people tend to maintain social media portfolios, consisting of accounts on different platforms, to share photos, updates and connect with peers. Adolescents, in particular, value the opinions of their peers, and the simple act of peers “liking” a recently published photo serves as a “quantifiable social endorsement” (Sherman et al., 2016[71]). More “popular” photos (i.e. those with more “likes”) can elicit different responses from young people than less popular ones. For example, they tend to garner more likes even when showing risky behaviours, such as smoking marijuana and drinking alcohol, and certain brain regions show higher activity levels when viewing these posts, such as those associated with social memories, cognition and imitation, and the visual cortex (Sherman et al., 2016[70]).
“Facebook addiction”, excessive social media use and risky behaviours
“Facebook addiction” and other classifications of excessive media use have gained traction in policy and research spheres. However, as with “gaming addiction” and Internet Gaming Disorder, these classifications are not universally recognised.
Even though more children are using social media than ever before, research on the effects of that activity on developing brains is still in its infancy. The use of social media has been connected to facial recognition and memory, which could prove beneficial in establishing and maintaining strong social networks both on line and off, in adolescence and later in life. However, directional causality cannot be inferred, and often the functional relevance of certain brain phenomena is unclear.
As this is a fast-moving area, the importance of using rigorous research is more necessary than ever (OECD, 2018[65]). At present, there appears to be a disconnect between the available evidence, media and public perception. Claims that “smartphones have ruined a generation” and “new technology ‘re-wires’ children’s brains” are largely unfounded: changes in the brain (i.e. plasticity) are normal developmental processes in childhood and adolescence, and any major “rewiring” as a result of technology use is unlikely (Kardfelt-Winther, 2017[64]). However, it is clear that this is an area of study that will need constant updating and refinement as technology evolves.
Implications for physical health
Using ICTs is associated with various health-related outcomes and behaviours, including sleep patterns, posture and lifestyle. The following sections assess some of the potential risks and benefits of technology use on developing bodies [for the full review, see (Gottschalk, 2019[6])].
Sleep
The circadian rhythm is dependent on an internal clock. While not the only modulating factor of the circadian rhythm, light plays a major role in adjusting and synchronising these clocks (Touitou, Touitou and Reinberg, 2016[80]). Light that emits short wavelengths, such as blue and blue-green light, versus the longer wavelengths of orange or red light, has more of an effect on circadian rhythms (Brainard and Hanifin, 2002[81]; Thapan, Arendt and Skene, 2001[82]). Many devices today emit short-wavelength or blue light. This includes computers, cell phones and tablets, which over time have evolved to have larger and brighter screens.
Dosage (i.e. time spent engaging with devices) and age might affect melatonin production, important for signalling the onset of sleep. Adolescents and children might be more sensitive to light than adults, and more time using a device has been associated with a greater reduction in melatonin (Figueiro and Overington, 2016[83]). A systematic review of the literature uncovered 67 studies from 1999 to 2014 examining sleep patterns among school-aged children and adolescents. Some 90% of the studies found adverse associations between screen time and sleep outcomes, such as delayed timing and shortened duration of sleep (Hale and Guan, 2015[84]). However, association, or correlation, does not imply causality. Furthermore, there are often measurement errors regarding the amount of screen time and sleep time (Hale and Guan, 2015[84]). For example, teenagers are likely to over-report sleep time; and there is little research to validate assessments of adolescents’ time in front of a screen using self-reported and parent-reported measures (Hale and Guan, 2015[84]).
In addition, different types of media use at bedtime might have different implications for sleep. For example, in a cross-sectional study of 11-13 year-olds in the United Kingdom, difficulty falling asleep was most associated with activities such as using mobile phones and listening to music, whereas reduction in weekday sleep duration was linked to visiting social media sites and using a computer for studying (Arora et al., 2014[85]). Some of these results were hypothesised to be due to a combination of delayed melatonin release, resulting from exposure to light emission, as well as mental excitation (Arora et al., 2014[85]). The findings specifically concerning computer use for studying and its impact on sleep are particularly noteworthy, as over 50% of adolescents across OECD countries reported browsing the Internet for schoolwork outside of school at least once per week, according to PISA 2012 data (OECD, 2015[2]).
Establishing limits on when children and adolescents use technology (i.e. not in the hours immediately preceding bedtime), or providing children with protective equipment, such as blue light-blocking glasses, may help prevent sleep disruptions. Evidence suggests that these glasses are effective in mitigating melatonin suppression in teenagers (van der Lely et al., 2015[86]), so using them for late-night studying or scrolling through social media feeds before bedtime might be warranted. More research is needed to identify whether activating features on mobile devices, such “night shift” or “night mode”, are effective in avoiding disruption of melatonin production. These steps could be incorporated into good sleep-hygiene practices, which include avoiding excess (or any) caffeine, engaging in regular exercise, maintaining a regular sleep schedule and eliminating noise from the sleeping environment (Stepanski and Wyatt, 2003[87]).
Stress
When faced with a stressor, threat or a challenge, the human body responds by secreting glucocorticoids, such as cortisol, that help prepare the body to react (i.e. activating the “fight or flight” response) (Juster, McEwen and Lupien, 2010[88]; Afifi et al., 2018[89]). In healthy people, the levels of cortisol follow a cyclic pattern and generally peak after waking, then drop steeply at various times in the day, with the lowest point before bedtime (Afifi et al., 2018[89]). Changes in this pattern or chronically high or low levels of cortisol can have negative effects on human physiology and psychological outcomes (Davidson and Irwin, 1999[90]; Damasio, 2000[91]).
Long periods of ICT use (i.e. three hours or more per day) and the type of media used might affect the cortisol response in children (Wallenius et al., 2010[92]). In one study looking at Facebook use by 12-17 year-olds (n=88), cortisol profiles were associated with Facebook network size and Facebook peer interactions. Further research suggests that the adolescents who engage more with general media, use their phones more and have larger networks on Facebook may show, upon waking, greater rises in cortisol (associated with poor mental and physical health) and rates of interleukin-6 (an inflammatory marker whose overproduction is associated with poor health) (Afifi et al., 2018[89]). Experimental and/or longitudinal work in this field can determine whether media use causes this biological response, or whether the response is a stimulator for media use.
Stress can be measured through biological markers, including cortisol, and also through subjective measures, such as respondents’ reports of perceived stress. In response to stressful events, children may consume media to manage stress or mood through entertainment. Some studies show that playing games can help reduce physical stress temporarily and improve one’s mood (Russoniello, O’Brien and Parks, 2009[137]). Social support offered in online and offline forums can help buffer the effects of stressful life events (Leung, 2007[93]).
Overeating, sedentary lifestyles and obesity
Over recent decades, increases in television watching and using the computer have raised concerns about obesity in children. Certain habits associated with screen time have been linked with body mass, especially in children. Eating while watching television, for example, has been associated with an increase in energy intake (i.e. more calories or food eaten) because it can delay normal mealtime satiation (i.e. the feeling of fullness), and because it can obscure signals of satiety from foods that had been previously consumed (i.e. children do not stop eating, even though they are already full) (Bellissimo et al., 2007[94]).
Further links with obesity and screen time tend to be less linear. For example, some literature points to the notion of a “displacement effect”, whereby time spent using technology causes harm proportional to exposure, and detracts from other potentially more “valuable” activities (Neuman, 1988[95]). However, a recent review of the literature suggests that reducing screen time may not motivate adolescents and children to engage more in physical activity (Kardfelt-Winther, 2017[64]); see also Box 4.2); other research has shown that screen-based, sedentary behaviour and leisure-time physical activity are independent of one another (Gebremariam et al., 2013[96]). Television watching may displace other activities, such as reading, but the overall evidence of the negative impact of displacement is relatively weak (Evans Schmidt and Anderson, 2009[37]).
In any case, displacement effects can differ based on the extent of screen time and the activities being displaced. For example, heavy Internet use may interfere with participation in clubs and sports, whereas moderate use has been shown to encourage participation (Romer, Bagdasarov and More, 2013[96]). This is a relatively consistent finding across the research: moderate Internet use, and shared media experiences, allow young people to build rapport with their peers (Romer, Bagdasarov and More, 2013[98]; Romer, Jamieson and Pasek, 2009[99]; Pasek et al., 2006[100]).
Activity, energy and co-ordination
With developments in technology, there has been a shift in video games from being sedentary and controller-based to requiring players to engage in physical movements in order to interact with the screen-based game (Norris, Hamer and Stamatakis, 2016[101])). Augmented reality games, or those that involve geo-tracking (or in the case of Pokémon GO, a game that uses both) are also becoming increasingly popular; some argue that they promote movement.
But the evidence is mixed. A systematic review of the literature on using active video games as effective health interventions in schools found that the quality of the research was not high enough, and recommended randomised controlled trials with larger samples (Norris, Hamer and Stamatakis, 2016[101]). In contrast, a meta-analysis including 35 articles on active video games concluded that these games can be a good alternative to sedentary behaviour, although they are not replacements for more traditional sports and physical activity for children and adolescents. Results from this meta-analysis, however, ranged from null to moderate effect sizes (Gao et al., 2015[102]).
Technology might also be used to enhance the development of physical skills. For example, using applications on an iPad that require motor skills has been associated with improvements in motor co-ordination (Axford, Joosten and Harris, 2018[103]). With the emergence of skill-training applications and active video games, such as Wii Sports and Dance Dance Revolution, recommendations of screen use for children and adolescents may need to be re-evaluated. However, simply providing children with access to active video games is unlikely to prompt spontaneous engagement in more physical activity and may not benefit public health (Baranowski et al., 2012[104]). More research in this field is needed to ascertain whether and how active video games can be used to boost children’s activity and fitness.
Musculoskeletal discomfort and posture
There are other physiological implications associated technology use. Musculoskeletal discomfort associated with children’s computer use has been noted in a number of studies (Jacobs and Baker, 2002[105]); Woo, White and Lai, 2016[144]), as have the risks to posture associated with the use of computers and tablets. Certain conditions, including asymmetrical and sustained positions of the lower extremities, and holding a posture for more than one minute might contribute to the discomfort, as could using a tablet rather than a laptop, which might result in more sustained neck flexion (Ciccarelli, 2015[106]). More recent evidence also suggests an increase in adverse neck symptoms related to television, phone and tablet use, and adverse visual symptoms related to more frequent use of cell phones and tablets (Straker, 2017[107]).
Parents, educators and young people should all be aware of how to identify risks to their posture (Ciccarelli, 2015[106]). Physically changing where in the home or school children use devices can help vary the postures used. Adults can help children understand that changes in posture and taking active breaks to include stretching and movement can be beneficial (Harris, 2015[108]). Teacher-training programmes for pre- and in-service teachers could also include modules on how teachers and students can counter the adverse physical effects of sustained or static positions when using computers – or simply when sitting in class (Murphy, Buckle and Stubbs, 2004[109]).
Safe and responsible internet use: the role of schools
Schools play a key role in supporting safe and responsible Internet use. The challenge for schools lies in their ability to reduce the negative uses of the Internet and digital devices while maintaining their contributions to teaching, learning and social connection (Kaveri Subrahmanyam and Patricia Greenfield, 2008[110]). In order to do this, children should be taught how to manage rather than avoid risks online (Middaugh, Clark and Ballard, 2017[111]). This section discusses the best approaches used by schools to support students in their digital use (for the full discussion, see (Hooft Graafland, 2018[3]).
School organisation and policies
A whole-school approach, where teachers and support staff are able to recognise, respond and resolve online safety issues, is found to be effective in protecting and supporting students in their use of technology (Ofsted, 2014[112]). It is thus essential to train teachers and support staff in online risks and their implications. Training should be provided on a regular basis, as digital technology is changing rapidly and it is important for teachers to stay up-to-date with new developments. Parents and students can also get involved to strengthen the school’s capacity to deal with online safety issues.
In addition to a whole-school approach, online safety policies and procedures are important (UK Safer Internet Centre, 2018[113]). A survey conducted in the United Kingdom showed that only 5% of schools did not have an online safety policy in place. Yet for those schools that did, students were not always well-informed about this: only 74% of students were aware that they had an online safety policy at school; and few students were involved in writing online safety policies (Ofsted, 2014[112]). Listening to children and engaging them in the development of online safety policies is important, as children know best what new risks they are encountering on line.
Effective policies and procedures promote responsible and safe online practise for both students and staff (e.g. children knowing how to report an online safety incident; schools handling students’ personal data in a safe and secure manner). Good policies are designed to support students’ online learning rather than just preventing or limiting access. Policies and procedures should be up-to-date and integrated with other existing policies around anti-bullying, behaviour and safeguarding (UK Safer Internet Centre, 2018[113]).
Policies and rules to prevent cyberbullying should not be seen separately but within the context of traditional bullying. Many studies have shown strong correlations between traditional bullying and cyberbullying (Livingstone, Stoilova and Kelly, 2016[114]; Baldry, Farrington and Sorrentino, 2015[115]). Successful interventions to tackle traditional bullying may therefore also reduce cyberbullying (Livingstone, Stoilova and Kelly, 2016[114]). Effective policies for bullying clearly describe what behaviour is and is not accepted on line and at school, and what the consequences are for violating these rules (StopBullying, 2017[116]).
E-safety in the curriculum
Including online safety in the school’s curriculum helps children become safe and responsible users of technologies (Hinduja and Patchin, 2018[117]). A survey conducted in the United Kingdom showed that 25% of secondary students could not recall “if they had been taught about online safety over the [previous] 12 months” (UK Safer Internet Centre, 2015[118]). Most schools use assemblies and ICT lessons to provide online safety education that focuses on teaching children digital skills and providing them with one-way online safety messages, as opposed to interactive and dynamic pedagogy (Harrison-Evans and Krasodomski-Jones, 2017[119]).
Due to a lack of evaluative evidence, it is unclear how effective such strategies are in supporting positive and safe online behaviour. In addition, there is a growing belief that schools should focus more on teaching children digital citizenship responsibilities. Children who are morally and ethically sensitive are more likely to engage in positive online behaviour, while the contrary is true for children with lower levels of moral sensitivity (Harrison-Evans and Krasodomski-Jones, 2017[119]). Peer-support programmes or mentoring schemes can also be effective in enhancing online safety in schools. Some 78% of 11-16 year-olds believe “young people have the power to create a kinder online community” (UK Safer Internet Centre, 2015[118]).
For adolescents and pre-teens, messages about online safety should include warnings about the risks of sexting and other online sexual risks. For example, education on sexting may be included within the school’s sex and relationship education programme. Emphasising social risks (e.g. peer aggression or damaged reputation if an image goes viral) may contribute to “slut-shaming” and victim blaming, while focusing on education and career risks (e.g. rejection from educational or career opportunities if an image goes viral) may create unnecessary fear, as images are rarely uploaded to public websites (Hasinoff, 2012[120]). Instead, educators should focus on harm-reduction strategies that teach children empathy and digital privacy. This could include, for example, a classroom discussion about the benefits and risks of sharing sexy “selfies”. If children know how to navigate sexual risk and trust, they will be less likely to get involved in acts of sexual violation (e.g. forwarding a sexual image of someone without permission) (Hasinoff, 2016[121]).
School communication with families
It is important that online safety education continues at home. As children go on line at an ever-younger age, parents and caregivers play a more important role in educating children about technology (Duerager and Livingstone, 2012[122]). Effective mediation reduces the likelihood of children being harmed by online risks or becoming “extreme Internet users” (Anderson, Steen and Stavropoulos, 2016[123]; Livingstone and Smith, 2014[124]).
It is therefore essential for schools to educate parents and caregivers as well as children. Parents lacking communication or digital skills may respond to safety incidents (e.g. cyberbullying) by taking their child’s phone away. While this might be an effective short-term strategy, it can also prevent possibly harmed children from seeking help from their parents in the future (Fenaughty and Harré, 2013[125]). Developing relationships with families builds a safe community between home and school.
Technology can also be used as a tool to improve parent-teacher communication (Choi, 2018[126]). Through online platforms, parents can be informed about their child’s attendance, performance and behaviour at school. Examples include text messages to parents to engage them in their child’s learning by informing them about the number of missed classes, providing students with career guidance and relevant tips for college admissions, or “mindset messages” to help students develop positive attitudes towards themselves, their peers and the school. These are low-cost and effective interventions that yield positive results (Escueta et al., 2017[127]). For teachers and school leaders, using technology (text messages, platforms and social networks) to make sure both parents have access to scholastic information and news about their child is efficient, and especially useful in ensuring that the information is transmitted in cases of divorce, when parents may be reluctant to communicate with each other.
The role of peers
Besides seeking help from parents and teachers, children turn to each other when they need support; but the effectiveness of peer mediation remains little researched (Livingstone et al., 2011[128]). Some 44% of European 9-16 year-olds reported having received Internet safety advice from peers (as compared to 63% receiving advice from parents and 58% from teachers); 35% reported having given such advice to friends. Practical peer mediation appears to be even more common: 64% received help when they had trouble doing or finding something on line (Livingstone et al., 2011[128]).
Children who seek anonymous support can contact national helplines. Within the Insafe network (consisting of 31 countries), helplines provide children (and to a lesser extent parents and educators) with information, advice and emotional support about online safety. Most helplines can be accessed through diverse means, including telephone, e-mail, Skype, chat rooms and on line (Dinh et al., 2016[129]).
During the last quarter of 2017, 10 809 people contacted a helpline, 69% of whom were teenagers. Reasons for contacting helplines included cyberbullying (16%), relationships/sexuality (11%), sexting (8%), abuse of privacy (7%) and excessive use (6%) (Better Internet for Kids, 2018[130]). Internet safety helplines do not replace mediation of Internet use by parents, teachers or peers. Helplines should rather be seen as a first point of contact for immediate support (Dinh et al., 2016[129]).
Source: (Hooft Graafland, 2018[3])
Peer mediation can positively affect children’s digital literacy and the type of activities they engage in on line. Children learn about new opportunities on line mainly through their peers. However, participating in creative online activities seems to depend less on peer support and more on children’s individual priorities (Dinh et al., 2016[129]).
Developing policies
Developing policies that both safeguard and empower children in a digital world is challenging. This section outlines different regulation strategies, as well as effective policy characteristics and recommendations. Also discussed are the gaps in our evidence base about children’s lives on line that make it difficult to design policies that address risks and make the most of opportunities to benefit all children (for the full discussion, see (Hooft Graafland, 2018[3]).
Regulation strategies
The OECD’s Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry is revisiting and updating the OECD (2012), Recommendation of the Council on the Protection of Children Online, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0389. The Recommendation includes principles for all stakeholders involved in making the Internet a safer environment for children and educating them to become responsible digital citizens.
For many risks that exist both on line and off-line, existing laws and regulations apply and no additional laws are needed. For such risks, most countries enhance general laws so that what is illegal off-line also becomes illegal on line. For example, a majority of countries have now updated their national regulation regarding child-inappropriate content to include the Internet.
In other cases, countries do adopt new legislation. In 2007, a new law was issued in France to make “happy slapping” – filming and distributing acts of violence on line (mostly carried out by youth) – a crime. In the United States, a law was adopted in 2003 on misleading online domain names. Australia, France, Ireland, Japan, New Zealand, Norway and the United Kingdom have issued legislation related to cyber-grooming. In Japan, for example, it is now illegal to arrange dates with minors through online dating websites.
An alternative to direct governmental regulation to protect children on line is self- and co-regulation or using technologies. Self- and co-regulation measures influence the behaviour of market actors, such as search-engine operators and social media companies, that voluntarily show social responsibility, through codes of conduct, best practices or industry guidelines. Social network services, for instance, may contribute to online child safety by improving default privacy settings, introducing accessible “report abuse” buttons, or setting age limits for creating user accounts. Technological measures include filters (to keep children away from certain risks), age- or identity-verification systems (to prevent children from using specific websites) and walled gardens (to create child-safety zones on the Internet). Other policy tools include awareness campaigns that highlight online risks and opportunities, and provide positive content for children. Internet literacy is also increasingly becoming integrated in national educational systems (OECD, 2011[131]).
Common characteristics of successful policies
Besides protecting children from online harm, policy makers should support children in their digital skill development. (UNESCO, 2018[132]) compared five international studies on digital skills and identified two types of policies required to obtain an environment where children can successfully develop those skills. First, policy makers should focus on non-sectoral policies that support a digital environment and second, on sectoral policies related to education. Successful non-sectoral policies include those that improve technological infrastructure, digitalisation of businesses and the nature of online content.
Technological infrastructure refers to physical infrastructure and telecommunications networks (e.g. the costs, quality and speed of Internet access) and is essential for developing digital skills. Corporate digitalisation also contributes to skills development as education systems tend to adjust their teaching to meet labour-market requirements. If businesses demand more digital skills, students are more likely to develop these in school. In addition, the richness of online content can be a driver of digital skills development. In larger language communities (e.g. France, Germany, Spain, the United Kingdom and the United States) there is more positive online content for children available in their local language in comparison with smaller language communities (e.g. the Czech Republic, Greece and Slovenia) (Livingstone and Haddon, 2009[133]). Those children are likely to have more online opportunities and better digital skills (UNESCO, 2018[132]).
Education policies that foster the development of children’s digital skills are those that provide ICT in schools, training for teachers, and support the integration of technologies into school curricula. The Republic of Korea and Singapore are good examples of how education policies can lead to higher levels of digital skills among schoolchildren. The growth strategy of the Republic of Korea includes massive investments in the so-called Smart Education Initiative since 2009 to digitalise education. Since 1997, Singapore has an ICT Master Plan for Education that reflects education policies related to improving children’s digital skills. Other countries have adapted policies that go beyond teaching children basic technical skills. For example, in the United Kingdom, coding is now part of children’s compulsory education. Students in Denmark can use the Internet while taking certain school examinations. The aim there is to teach children how to process and critically evaluate content rather than learning it by heart. In Norway, all students have to take a national digital skills evaluation test (UNESCO, 2018[132]).
Considerations for policy development
Even though children often seem to understand technology better than adults do, they need guidance on how to use technology in a responsible and positive way. The following set of messages are important to consider when developing policy (Hooft Graafland, 2018[3]):
-
Adults who understand online safety and are able to use technology seem to be more successful in guiding children’s digital use. Therefore, it is crucial that parents and teachers receive information on online safety and advice on how to help children manage online risks (Livingstone, Davidson and Bryce, 2017[134]).
-
Children need to be stimulated to become content creators and not just receivers (Livingstone, Davidson and Bryce, 2017[134]). The Internet offers many opportunities for creativity and civic engagement, yet only 20% of children take advantage of them (Byrne and et al, 2016[135]). Most children still use the Internet for ready-made, mass-produced content, such as watching online video clips or listening to music.
-
Empirical research has shown that children’s socio-economic background and their level of digital skills are related such that children from more advantaged backgrounds tend to have higher digital skills. Special efforts should be made to overcome these inequalities and ensure that disadvantaged children receive the support and guidance they need to succeed in a digital world (Hatlevik, Guðmundsdóttir and Loi, 2015[136]; Hooft Graafland, 2018[3]).
-
Children are the most frequent users of digital media and know best what new risks they are experiencing online. Policy makers and education practitioners should therefore actively listen to children and engage them in an ongoing conversion about how to use technologies in a responsible way (Third and et al, 2014[137]).
-
Policy solutions to common challenges should be based on robust evidence. Although seemingly self-evident, this is not always the case, especially regarding current fears that technology is harmful for children. Policy makers should encourage quantitative and qualitative research, as this is vital to support claims regarding the impact of new technologies on children’s behaviour and development (Byrne and Burton, 2017[138]).
Conclusions
While people have different views on the role that digital technology can and should play in schools, one cannot ignore how digital tools have fundamentally transformed the world outside of school. People who cannot navigate through the digital landscape can no longer participate fully in social, economic and cultural life. Technology should therefore play an important role in providing students with the 21st-century skills they need to succeed, and in providing teachers with learning environments that support 21st-century methods of teaching.
Claims that digital technologies will make teachers redundant seem generally unfounded. The heart of teaching has always been relational, and teaching seems to be one of the most enduring social activities. So there will be more, not less, demand for people who are able to build and support learners. The value of teaching as a key differentiator is only bound to rise as digitalisation leads to the unbundling of educational content, accreditation and teaching that make up traditional schools. In the digital age, the educational content of today will be a commodity available to everyone tomorrow. Accreditation still gives educational institutions enormous power; but what will micro-credentialing do to accreditation when employers can directly validate specific knowledge and skills? In the end, the quality of teaching seems the most valuable asset of modern educational institutions.
Still, as in many other professions, digital technologies will likely be used to perform many of the tasks now carried out by teachers. Even if teaching will never be digitised or outsourced, routine administrative and instructional tasks that take valuable time away from teaching are already being handed over to technology. Technology can elevate the role of teachers from imparting received knowledge towards working as co-creators of knowledge, as coaches, mentors and evaluators. Even today, intelligent digital learning systems can be adapted to suit personal learning styles.
Information and communication technology (ICT) is therefore changing the way children are learning. Not only schools, but also early childhood educational institutions are exploring ways to integrate ICT into the learning environment. But the availability of ICT in educational institutions is only one aspect of this shift. Education systems need to re-evaluate their curricula, and teachers need to reassess their teaching styles, to ensure that ICT is used effectively. Education policies that foster the development of children’s digital skills are those that provide ICT in schools, training for teachers, and support the integration of technologies into school curricula.
At the same time, given the ubiquity of technology in the lives of 21st-century children, a concerted effort needs to be made to protect children from the risks associated with technology use, including cyberbullying, phishing, access to unsuitable material and pornography, and “grooming” by strangers. But parents and educators should keep in mind the potential benefits of ICT use, such as forming and sustaining friendships, developing digital skills relevant for the 21st-century labour market and accessing nearly limitless information.
References
Afifi, T. et al. (2018), “WIRED: The impact of media and technology use on stress (cortisol) and inflammation (interleukin IL-6) in fast paced families”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 81, pp. 265-273, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.12.010. [87]
Anderson, D. et al (2001), “Early childhood television viewing and adolescent behavior: the recontact study”, Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, Vol. 66/1, pp. 1-47, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11326591. [47]
Anderson, D. (1998), “Educational Television is not an Oxymoron”, The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 557/1, pp. 24-38, https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716298557000003. [46]
Anderson, D. and T. Pempek (2005), “Television and Very Young Children”, American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 48/5, pp. 505-522, https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764204271506. [54]
Anderson, D. and K. Subrahmanyam (2017), “Digital Screen Media and Cognitive Development on behalf of the Cognitive Impacts of Digital Media Workgroup”, Pediatrics, Vol. 140/2, http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/pediatrics/140/Supplement_2/S57.full.pdf. [45]
Anderson, E., E. Steen and V. Stavropoulos (2016), “Internet use and Problematic Internet Use: a systematic review of longitudinal research trends in adolescence and emergent adulthood”, International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, Vol. 22/4, pp. 430-454, https://doi.org/10.1080/02673843.2016.1227716. [120]
Arora, T. et al. (2014), “Associations between specific technologies and adolescent sleep quantity, sleep quality, and parasomnias”, Sleep Medicine, Vol. 15/2, pp. 240-247, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sleep.2013.08.799. [83]
Axford, C., A. Joosten and C. Harris (2018), “iPad applications that required a range of motor skills promoted motor coordination in children commencing primary school”, Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, Vol. 65/2, pp. 146-155, https://doi.org/10.1111/1440-1630.12450. [100]
Baldry, A., D. Farrington and A. Sorrentino (2015), ““Am I at risk of cyberbullying”? A narrative review and conceptual framework for research on risk of cyberbullying and cybervictimization: The risk and needs assessment approach”, Aggression and Violent Behavior, Vol. 23, pp. 36-51, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2015.05.014. [112]
Baranowski, T. et al. (2012), “Impact of an Active Video Game on Healthy Children’s Physical Activity”, PEDIATRICS, Vol. 129/3, pp. e636-e642, https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2011-2050. [101]
Barkovich, T. (1988), “Normal maturation of the neonatal and infant brain: MR imaging at 1.5 T.”, Radiology, Vol. 166/1, pp. 173-180, https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.166.1.3336675. [20]
Barr, R. et al. (2008), “Infants’ Attention and Responsiveness to Television Increases With Prior Exposure and Parental Interaction”, Infancy, Vol. 13/1, pp. 30-56, https://doi.org/10.1080/15250000701779378. [40]
Bavelier, D., C. Green and M. Dye (2010), “Children, wired: For better and for worse”, Neuron, Vol. 67/5, pp. 692-701, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.NEURON.2010.08.035. [16]
Bellissimo, N. et al. (2007), “Effect of Television Viewing at Mealtime on Food Intake After a Glucose Preload in Boys”, Pediatric Research, Vol. 61/6, pp. 745-749, https://doi.org/10.1203/pdr.0b013e3180536591. [92]
Bergmann, J. and A. Sams (2012), Flip Your Classroom: Reach Every Student in Every Class Every Day, International Society for Technology in Education, https://www.liceopalmieri.edu.it/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Flip-Your-Classroom.pdf (accessed on 9 August 2018). [7]
Better Internet for Kids (2018), Latest helpline trends: Quarter 4, http://www.betterinternetforkids.eu/web/portal/practice/helplines/detail?articleId=2942283 (accessed on 25 June 2018). [127]
Bliss, T. and R. Schoepfer (2004), “Neuroscience: controlling the ups and downs of synaptic strength”, Scienc, Vol. 304/5673, pp. 973-974, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1098805. [21]
Bonetti, L., M. Campbell and L. Gilmore (2010), “The Relationship of Loneliness and Social Anxiety with Children’s and Adolescents’ Online Communication”, Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, Vol. 13/3, pp. 279-285, https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2009.0215. [73]
Boniel-Nissim, M. et al. (2014), “Supportive communication with parents moderates the negative effects of electronic media use on life satisfaction during adolescence”, International Journal of Public Health, Vol. 60/2, pp. 189-198, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00038-014-0636-9. [77]
Brainard, G. and J. Hanifin (2002), “Action Spectrum for Melatonin Suppression: Evidence for a Novel Circadian Photoreceptor in the Human Eye”, in Biologic Effects of Light 2001, Springer US, Boston, MA, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-0937-0_45. [79]
Brody, J. (2015), “Screen Addiction Is Taking a Toll on Children”, New York Times, https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/07/06/screen-addiction-is-taking-a-toll-on-children/?_r=0. [4]
Bulman, G. and R. Farlie (2016), “Technology and education: Computers, software, and the Internet”, in Handbook of Economics of Education, Vol. 5, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-63459-7.00005-1. [10]
Byrne, J. and P. Burton (2017), “Children as Internet users: how can evidence better inform policy debate?”, Journal of Cyber Policy, Vol. 2/1, pp. 39-52, https://doi.org/10.1080/23738871.2017.1291698. [135]
Byrne, J. and et al (2016), Global Kids Online Research synthesis, 2015-2016, UNICEF Office of Research– Innocenti and London School of Economics and Political Science, http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/67965/7/Global%20Kids%20Online_Synthesis%20report_2016.pdf. [132]
Canadian Paediatric Society, Digital Health Task Force, Ottawa, Ontario (2017), “Screen time and young children: Promoting health and development in a digital world”, Paediatrics & Child Health, Vol. 22/8, pp. 461-468, https://doi.org/10.1093/pch/pxx123. [42]
Center on the Developing Child (2009), Five Numbers to Remember About Early Childhood Development, http://www.developingchild.harvard.edu. [23]
Certain, L. and R. Kahn (2002), “Prevalence, correlates, and trajectory of television viewing among infants and toddlers”, Pediatrics, Vol. 109/4, pp. 634-42, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11927708. [43]
Choi, A. (2018), “Emotional well-being of children and adolescents: Recent trends and relevant factors”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 169, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/41576fb2-en. [123]
Ciccarelli, M. (2015), “Managing children’s postural risk when using mobile technology at home: Challenges and strategies”, Applied Ergonomics, Vol. 51, pp. 189-198, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APERGO.2015.04.003. [103]
Crone, E. and E. Konjin (2018), “Media use and brain development during adolescence”, Nature Communications, Vol. 9/1, p. 588, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-03126-x. [24]
Davidson, R. and W. Irwin (1999), “The functional neuroanatomy of emotion and affective style”, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, Vol. 3/1, pp. 11-21, https://doi.org/10.1016/s1364-6613(98)01265-0. [88]
Dinh, T. et al. (2016), Insafe Helplines: Operations, effectiveness and emerging issues for internet safety helplines, Insafe, European Schoolnet, http://www.betterinternetforkids.eu/documents/167024/507884/Helpline+Fund+Report+-+Final/4cf8f03a-3a48-4365-af76-f03e01cb505d. [126]
Duerager, A. and S. Livingstone (2012), How can parents support children’s internet safety?, http://www.lse.ac.uk/media%40lse/research/EUKidsOnline/EU%20Kids%20III/Reports/ParentalMediation.pdf (accessed on 30 March 2018). [119]
Duggan, M. and A. Smith (2014), Social Media Update, Pew Research Center, http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/12/30/social-media-update-2013/. [66]
Durkee, T. (2012), “Prevalence of pathological internet use among adolescents in Europe: demographic and social factors”, Addiction, Vol. 107/12, pp. 2210-2222, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2012.03946.x. [14]
Escueta, M. et al. (2017), Education Technology: An Evidence-Based Review, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA, https://doi.org/10.3386/w23744. [124]
Evans Schmidt, M. and D. Anderson (2009), “The impact of television on cognitive development and educational achievement”, in Children and Television: Fifty years of research, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ. [37]
Fairlie, R. and A. Kalil (2017), “The effects of computers on children’s social development and school participation: Evidence from a randomized control experiment”, Economics of Education Review, Vol. 57, pp. 10-19, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2017.01.001. [76]
Falck, O., C. Mang and L. Woessman (2018), “Virtually no effect? Different uses of classroom computers and their effects on student achievement”, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 80/1, pp. 1-38, https://doi.org/10.1111/obes.12192. [11]
Fenaughty, J. and N. Harré (2013), “Factors associated with distressing electronic harassment and cyberbullying”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 29/3, pp. 803-811, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.11.008. [122]
Figueiro, M. and D. Overington (2016), “Self-luminous devices and melatonin suppression in adolescents”, Lighting Research & Technology, Vol. 48/8, pp. 966-975, https://doi.org/10.1177/1477153515584979. [81]
Foster, E. and S. Watkins (2010), “The Value of Reanalysis: TV Viewing and Attention Problems”, Child Development, Vol. 81/1, pp. 368-375, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01400.x. [34]
Franceschini, S. et al. (2017), “Action video games improve reading abilities and visual-to-auditory attentional shifting in English-speaking children with dyslexia”, Scientific Reports, Vol. 7/1, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-05826-8. [59]
Fuhrmann, D., L. Knoll and S. Blakemore (2015), “Adolescence as a Sensitive Period of Brain Development”, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, Vol. 19/10, pp. 558-566, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TICS.2015.07.008. [29]
Gao, Z. et al. (2015), “A meta-analysis of active video games on health outcomes among children and adolescents”, Obesity Reviews, Vol. 16/9, pp. 783-794, https://doi.org/10.1111/obr.12287. [99]
Gebremariam, M. et al. (2013), “Are screen-based sedentary behaviors longitudinally associated with dietary behaviors and leisure-time physical activity in the transition into adolescence?”, International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, Vol. 10/1, p. 9, https://doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-10-9. [94]
Glover, G. (2011), “Overview of functional magnetic resonance imaging”, Neurosurgery clinics of North America, Vol. 22/2, pp. 133-139, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nec.2010.11.001. [30]
Gottschalk, F. (2019), “Impacts of technology use on children: Exploring literature on the brain, cognition and well-being”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 195, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/8296464e-en. [6]
Granic, I., A. Lobel and R. Engels (2014), “The benefits of playing video games.”, American Psychologist, Vol. 69/1, pp. 66-78, https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034857. [56]
Hale, L. and S. Guan (2015), “Screen time and sleep among school-aged children and adolescents: A systematic literature review”, Sleep Medicine Reviews, Vol. 21, pp. 50-58, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smrv.2014.07.007. [82]
Harris, C. (2015), “Children, computer exposure and musculoskeletal outcomes: the development of pathway models for school and home computer-related musculoskeletal outcomes”, Ergonomics, Vol. 58/10, pp. 1611-1623, https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2015.1035762. [105]
Harrison-Evans, P. and A. Krasodomski-Jones (2017), The Moral Web: Youth Character, Ethics and Behaviour, https://www.demos.co.uk/project/the-moral-web/ (accessed on 15 May 2018). [116]
Hasinoff, A. (2016), Tips for parents and educators, https://amyhasinoff.wordpress.com/tips-for-parents-educators/ (accessed on 17 May 2018). [118]
Hasinoff, A. (2012), “Sexting as media production: Rethinking social media and sexuality”, New Media & Society, Vol. 15/4, pp. 449-465, https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444812459171. [117]
Hatlevik, O., G. Guðmundsdóttir and M. Loi (2015), “Digital diversity among upper secondary students: A multilevel analysis of the relationship between cultural capital, self-efficacy, strategic use of information and digital competence”, Computers & Education, Vol. 81, pp. 345-353, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.10.019. [133]
Hattie, J. and G. Yates (2013), Visible Learning and the Science of How We Learn, Routledge, London. [8]
Haughton, C., M. Aiken and C. Cheevers (2015), “Cyber Babies: The Impact of Emerging Technology on the Developing Infant”, Psychology Research, Vol. 5/9, pp. 504-518, https://doi.org/10.17265/2159-5542/2015.09.002. [36]
Hinduja, S. and J. Patchin (2018), Cyberbullying fact sheet: Identification, Prevention, and Response,, https://cyberbullying.org/Cyberbullying-Identification-Prevention-Response-2018.pdf (accessed on 16 May 2018). [114]
Hooft Graafland, J. (2018), “New technologies and 21st century children: Recent trends and outcomes”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 179, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/e071a505-en. [3]
Hopkins, L., F. Brookes and J. Green (2013), “Books, bytes and brains: The implications of new knowledge for children’s early literacy learning”, Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, Vol. 38/1, pp. 23-28, https://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=266659007690976;res=IELHSS. [5]
Irwin, L., A. Siddiqi and C. Hertzman (2007), Early Child Development: A Powerful Equalizer Final Report, World Health Organization’s Commission on the Social Determinants of Health. [27]
Jacobs, K. and N. Baker (2002), “The association between children’s computer use and musculoskeletal discomfort”, Work, Vol. 18/3, pp. 221-226. [102]
Juster, R., B. McEwen and S. Lupien (2010), “Allostatic load biomarkers of chronic stress and impact on health and cognition”, Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, Vol. 35/1, pp. 2-16, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2009.10.002. [86]
Kardfelt-Winther, D. (2017), “How does the time children spend using digital technology impact their mental well-being, social relationships and physical activity? An evidence-focused literature review””, Innocenti Discussion Paper 2017-02, UNICEF Office of Research – Innocenti, Florence, https://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/Children-digital-technology-wellbeing.pdf. [63]
Kaveri Subrahmanyam and Patricia Greenfield (2008), “Online Communication and Adolescent Relationships”, The Future of Children, Vol. 18/1, pp. 119-146, https://doi.org/10.1353/foc.0.0006. [107]
Kostyrka-Allchorne, K., N. Cooper and A. Simpson (2017), “The relationship between television exposure and children’s cognition and behaviour: A systematic review”, Developmental Review, Vol. 44, pp. 19-58, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2016.12.002. [53]
Kraut, R. et al (1998), “Internet paradox. A social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well-being?”, The American Psychologist, Vol. 53/9, pp. 1017-1031, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9841579. [71]
Kuhl, P., F. Tsao and H. Liu (2003), “Foreign-language experience in infancy: Effects of short-term exposure and social interaction on phonetic learning”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 100/15, pp. 9096-9101, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1532872100. [55]
Landhuis, C. (2007), “Does Childhood Television Viewing Lead to Attention Problems in Adolescence? Results From a Prospective Longitudinal Study”, Pediatrics, Vol. 120/3, pp. 532-537, https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2007-0978. [32]
Lane, R. and L. Nadel (eds.) (2000), A Second Chance for Emotions, Oxford University Press, New York. [89]
Lee, E., J. Spence and V. Carson (2017), “Television viewing, reading, physical activity and brain development among young South Korean children”, Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, Vol. 20/7, pp. 672-677, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2016.11.014. [41]
Lenhart, A. (2015), Teens, Technology and Friendships, Pew Research Center, http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/08/06/teens-technology-and-friendships/. [67]
Leung, L. (2007), “Stressful Life Events, Motives for Internet Use, and Social Support Among Digital Kids”, CyberPsychology & Behavior, Vol. 10/2, pp. 204-214, https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2006.9967. [91]
Linebarger, D. and J. Piotrowski (2009), “TV as storyteller: How exposure to television narratives impacts at-risk preschoolers’ story knowledge and narrative skills”, British Journal of Developmental Psychology, Vol. 27/1, pp. 47-69, https://doi.org/10.1348/026151008x400445. [51]
Linebarger, D. and S. Vaala (2010), “Screen media and language development in infants and toddlers: An ecological perspective”, Developmental Review, Vol. 30/2, pp. 176-202, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2010.03.006. [49]
Linebarger, D. and D. Walker (2005), “Infants’ and Toddlers’ Television Viewing and Language Outcomes”, American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 48/5, pp. 624-645, https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764204271505. [50]
Livingstone, S., J. Davidson and J. Bryce (2017), Children’s online activities, risks and safety: A literature review by the UKCCIS Evidence Group, UK Council for Children Internet Safety, London, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/650933/Literature_Review_Final_October_2017.pdf. [131]
Livingstone, S. and L. Haddon (2009), “EU Kids Online: Final report”, EU Kids Online (EC Safer Internet Plus Programme Deliverable D6.5), LSE, London, http://uploadi.www.ris.org/editor/1273341021EUKidsOnlineFinalReport.pdf. [130]
Livingstone, S. et al. (2011), Risks and safety on the internet: the perspective of European children: full findings and policy implications from the EU Kids Online survey of 9-16 year olds and their parents in 25 countries,, EU Kids Online, Deliverable D4. EU Kids Online Network, http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/33731/. [125]
Livingstone, S. and P. Smith (2014), “Annual Research Review: Harms experienced by child users of online and mobile technologies: the nature, prevalence and management of sexual and aggressive risks in the digital age”, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, Vol. 55/6, pp. 635-654, https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12197. [121]
Livingstone, S., M. Stoilova and A. Kelly (2016), “Cyberbullying: incidence, trends and consequence”, in Ending the Torment: Tackling Bullying from the Schoolyard to Cyberspace, United Nations Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Violence against Children, New York, http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/68079/. [111]
Logothetis, N. (2008), “What we can do and what we cannot do with fMRI”, Nature, Vol. 453/7197, pp. 869-878, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature06976. [31]
Luciana, M. (2013), “Adolescent brain development in normality and psychopathology”, Development and Psychopathology, Vol. 25/4pt2, pp. 1325-1345, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579413000643. [25]
Meshi, D., D. Tamir and H. Heekeren (2015), “The Emerging Neuroscience of Social Media”, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, Vol. 19/12, pp. 771-782, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2015.09.004. [65]
Middaugh, E., L. Clark and P. Ballard (2017), “Digital Media, Participatory Politics, and Positive Youth Development”, Pediatrics, Vol. 140/Supplement 2, pp. S127-S131, https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2016-1758q. [108]
Miller, B. and R. Morris (2016), “Virtual Peer Effects in Social Learning Theory”, Crime & Delinquency, Vol. 62/12, pp. 1543-1569, https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128714526499. [75]
Ministère des Solidarités et de la Santé (2018), Carnet de Santé (health booklet), http://solidarites-sante.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/carnet_de_sante-num-.pdf. [17]
Murphy, S., P. Buckle and D. Stubbs (2004), “Classroom posture and self-reported back and neck pain in schoolchildren”, Applied Ergonomics, Vol. 35/2, pp. 113-120, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APERGO.2004.01.001. [106]
Neuman, S. (1988), “The Displacement Effect: Assessing the Relation between Television Viewing and Reading Performance”, Reading Research Quarterly, Vol. 23/4, p. 414, https://doi.org/10.2307/747641. [93]
Norris, E., M. Hamer and E. Stamatakis (2016), “Active Video Games in Schools and Effects on Physical Activity and Health: A Systematic Review”, The Journal of Pediatrics, Vol. 172, pp. 40-46.e5, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2016.02.001. [98]
OECD (2019), Trends Shaping Education 2019, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/trends_edu-2019-en. [13]
OECD (2018), Children and Young People’s Mental Health in the Digital Age: Shaping the Future, http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/Children-and-Young-People-Mental-Health-in-the-Digital-Age.pdf. [64]
OECD (2017), PISA 2015 Results (Volume III): Students’ Well-Being, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264273856-en. [1]
OECD (2015), Students, Computers and Learning: Making the Connection, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264239555-en. [2]
OECD (2011), “The Protection of Children Online: Risks Faced by Children Online and Policies to Protect Them”, OECD Digital Economy Papers, No. 179, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5kgcjf71pl28-en. [128]
Ofcom (2019), Children and Parents: Media Use and Attitudes Report 2018, https://www.ofcom.org.uk/research-and-data/media-literacy-research/childrens/children-and-parents-media-use-and-attitudes-report-2018. [15]
Ofsted (2014), Inspecting e-safety in schools, The Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted), http://dwn5wtkv5mp2x.cloudfront.net/downloads/resources/Ofsted_-_Inspecting_e-safety.pdf. [109]
Orben, A. and A. Przylbylski (2019), “The association between adolescent well-being and digital technology use”, Nature Human Behavior, Vol. 3/2, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0506-1. [19]
Paniagua, A. and D. Istance (2018), Teachers as Designers of Learning Environments: The Importance of Innovative Pedagogies, Educational Research and Innovation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264085374-en. [9]
Parkes, A. (2013), “Do television and electronic games predict children’s psychosocial adjustment? Longitudinal research using the UK Millennium Cohort Study”, Archives of Disease in Childhood, Vol. 98/5880, pp. 341-8, https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2011-301508. [35]
Pasek, J. et al. (2006), “America’s Youth and Community Engagement”, Communication Research, Vol. 33/3, pp. 115-135, https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650206287073. [97]
Pastalkova, E. (2006), “Storage of Spatial Information by the Maintenance Mechanism of LTP”, Science, Vol. 313/5790, pp. 1141-1144, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1128657. [22]
Paus, T. (2005), “Mapping brain maturation and cognitive development during adolescence”, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, Vol. 9/2, pp. 60-68, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TICS.2004.12.008. [26]
Petanjek, Z. (2011), “Extraordinary neoteny of synaptic spines in the human prefrontal cortex”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 108/32, pp. 13281-6, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1105108108. [28]
Pew Research Center (2018), Teens, Social Media and Technology 2018, http://www.pewinternet.org/2018/05/31/teens-social-media-technology-2018/. [68]
Pujol, J. et al. (2016), “Video gaming in school children: How much is enough?”, Annals of Neurology, Vol. 80/3, pp. 424-433, https://doi.org/10.1002/ana.24745. [58]
Rideout, V. and E. Hamel (2006), The Media Family: Electronic Media in the Lives of infants, Toddlers, Preschoolers and their Parents, Kaiser Family Foundation, https://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/zero-to-six-electronic-media-in-the-lives-of-infants-toddlers-and-preschoolers-pdf.pdf. [44]
Rodrigues, M. and F. Biagi (2017), Digital Technologies and Learning Outcomes of Students from Low Socio-economic Background: An Analysis of PISA 2015, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, https://doi.org/10.2760/415251. [12]
Romer, D., Z. Bagdasarov and E. More (2013), “Older Versus Newer Media and the Well-being of United States Youth: Results From a National Longitudinal Panel”, Journal of Adolescent Health, Vol. 52/5, pp. 613-619, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2012.11.012. [95]
Romer, D., K. Jamieson and J. Pasek (2009), “Building Social Capital in Young People: The Role of Mass Media and Life Outlook”, Political Communication, Vol. 26/1, pp. 65-83, https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600802622878. [96]
Rueda, M. et al (2005), “Training, maturation, and genetic influences on the development of executive attention”, PNAS, Vol. 102/41, pp. 14931-14936, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1253585/pdf/pnas-0506897102.pdf. [38]
Schmidt, M. and D. Anderson (2007), “The impact of television on cognitive development and educational achievement”, in Murray, N. and E. Wartella (eds.), Children and television: 50 years of Research, Lawrence Erlbaum, Manwah, NJ. [48]
Sherman, L. et al. (2016), “The Power of the Like in Adolescence”, Psychological Science, Vol. 27/7, pp. 1027-1035, https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797616645673. [70]
Smahel, D. (2012), Excessive internet use among European children Report Original citation: Excessive Internet Use among European Children, London School of Economics & Political Science, http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/47344/1/Excessive%20internet%20use.pdf. [62]
Stepanski, E. and J. Wyatt (2003), “Use of sleep hygiene in the treatment of insomnia”, Sleep Medicine Reviews, Vol. 7/3, pp. 215-225. [85]
StopBullying (2017), Set Policies & Rules, https://www.stopbullying.gov/prevention/at-school/rules/index.html (accessed on 23 May 2018). [113]
Straker, L. (2017), “Mobile technology dominates school children’s IT use in an advantaged school community and is associated with musculoskeletal and visual symptoms”, Ergonomics, pp. 1-12, https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2017.1401671. [104]
Takeuchi, H. et al. (2013), “The Impact of Television Viewing on Brain Structures: Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal Analyses”, Cerebral Cortex, Vol. 25/5, pp. 1188-1197, https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bht315. [39]
Thapan, K., J. Arendt and D. Skene (2001), “An action spectrum for melatonin suppression: evidence for a novel non-rod, non-cone photoreceptor system in humans”, The Journal of Physiology, Vol. 535/1, pp. 261-267, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7793.2001.t01-1-00261.x. [80]
The IMAGEN Consortium (2011), Kuhn et al., “The neural basis of video gaming”, Translational Psychiatry, Vol. 1/11, pp. e53-e53, https://doi.org/10.1038/tp.2011.53. [57]
Third, A. and et al (2014), Children’s Rights in the Digital Age: A Download from Children Around the World, Young and Well Cooperative Research Centre, Melbourne, http://www.unicef.org/publications/files/Childrens_Rights_in_the_Digital_Age_A_Download_from_Children_Around_the_World_FINAL.pdf. [134]
Touitou, Y., D. Touitou and A. Reinberg (2016), “Disruption of adolescents’ circadian clock: The vicious circle of media use, exposure to light at night, sleep loss and risk behaviors”, Journal of Physiology-Paris, Vol. 110/4, pp. 467-479, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jphysparis.2017.05.001. [78]
Turel, O. et al. (2014), “Examination of Neural Systems Sub-Serving Facebook “Addiction””, Psychological Reports, Vol. 115/3, pp. 675-695, https://doi.org/10.2466/18.pr0.115c31z8. [60]
UK Safer Internet Centre (2018), Online Safety Policy, https://www.saferinternet.org.uk/advice-centre/teachers-and-school-staff/online-safety-policy (accessed on 23 May 2018). [110]
UK Safer Internet Centre (2015), Ofsted reveals new ‘Online Safety in Schools’ survey | Safer Internet Centre, https://www.saferinternet.org.uk/blog/ofsted-reveals-new-%E2%80%98online-safety-schools%E2%80%99-survey (accessed on 23 May 2018). [115]
UNESCO (2018), “Managing tomorrow’s digital skills: what conclusions can we draw from international comparative indicators?”, UNESCO Working Papers on Education Policy, UNESCO Publishing, Paris, http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0026/002618/261853e.pdf. [129]
UNICEF (2017), The State of the World’s Children: Children in a digital world, https://www.unicef.org/publications/files/SOWC_2017_ENG_WEB.pdf (accessed on 22 February 2018). [72]
Valkenburg, P. and J. Peter (2007), “Online Communication and Adolescent Well-Being: Testing the Stimulation Versus the Displacement Hypothesis”, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, Vol. 12/4, pp. 1169-1182, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00368.x. [74]
van der Lely, S. et al. (2015), “Blue Blocker Glasses as a Countermeasure for Alerting Effects of Evening Light-Emitting Diode Screen Exposure in Male Teenagers”, Journal of Adolescent Health, Vol. 56/1, pp. 113-119, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2014.08.002. [84]
Viner, R., M. Davie and A. Firth (2019), The Health Impacts of Screen Time: A Guide for Clinicians and Parents, RCPCH, London, https://www.rcpch.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2018-12/rcpch_screen_time_guide_-_final.pdf. [18]
Wallenius, M. et al. (2010), “Salivary Cortisol in Relation to the Use of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in School-Aged Children”, Psychology, Vol. 01/02, pp. 88-95, https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2010.12012. [90]
Weinstein, A. and M. Lejoyeux (2015), “New developments on the neurobiological and pharmaco-genetic mechanisms underlying internet and videogame addiction”, The American Journal on Addictions, Vol. 24/2, pp. 117-125, https://doi.org/10.1111/ajad.12110. [61]
Woods, H. and H. Scott (2016), “#Sleepyteens: Social media use in adolescence is associated with poor sleep quality, anxiety, depression and low self-esteem”, Journal of Adolescence, Vol. 51, pp. 41-49, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2016.05.008. [69]
Wright, J. et al. (2001), “The Relations of Early Television Viewing to School Readiness and Vocabulary of Children from Low-Income Families: The Early Window Project”, Child Development, Vol. 72/5, pp. 1347-1366, https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.t01-1-00352. [52]
Zimmerman, F. and D. Christakis (2005), “Children’s television viewing and cognitive outcomes”, Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, Vol. 159/7, p. 619, https://doi.org/10.1001/archpedi.159.7.619. [33]
Notes
← 1. This was previously thought to be 700-1 000, and was updated by the Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University in 2017.
← 2. Magnetic resonance imaging refers to producing structural images of organs, such as the brain/central nervous system; functional magnetic resonance imaging detects changes in blood flow following enhanced neural activity from task-induced cognitive changes or as a result of “unregulated processes in the resting brain” (Logothetis, 2008[31]; Glover, 2011[30]).