France did it 5 years ago and now, from January 1, the Dutch have followed suit, banning devices such as mobile phones and tablets in classrooms unless needed during lessons, for medical reasons, or by students with disabilities. The ban aims to limit distractions during the school day.
We could all surely do with some device detox, but the question remains whether too much screentime has an impact on child development. Karen Mansfield, a postdoctoral researcher on adolescent well-being in the digital age at Oxford University, told Medscape Medical News, “The evidence is definitely not set in stone. There have been some recent reviews of screentime effects on children, demonstrating very mixed findings.”
The latest research, said Mansfied, is still young, lacking consistency in findings, and rife with misinterpretation.
Karen Mansfield, Oxford University.
Currently, policy implementation is racing far ahead of the evidence.
Tiziana Metitieri, a cognitive neuropsychologist at the Meyer Hospital in Florence, Italy, echoed these sentiments, suggesting that the sheer quantity of screentime is an insufficient metric for understanding its impact on cognitive and psychological development. “There are two main reasons for this,” she explained to Medscape Medical News. “Firstly, because the current measurements of screentime rely on self-report data, which can be affected by an overestimation or underestimation of objective usage due to social desirability bias. Secondly, because digital experiences differ in terms of content, device used, context, location, and individuals involved.”
Are Politicians in Too Much of a Rush?
UNESCO’s most recent report on technology in education highlighted a correlation between excessive mobile phone use and reduced educational performance and emotional stability.
The OECD report “Empowering Young Children in the Digital Age,” rightly suggested there is a need to improve protection in digital environments, bridge the digital divide, and educate parents and teachers on safe digital practices.
But Mansfield said, “Currently, policy implementation is racing far ahead of the evidence, with similar suggestions to ban smartphones in schools in the United Kingdom and Canada. However, there is no available evidence on the long-term benefits of banning smartphones. Much of the research behind the OECD and UNESCO policies is observational in nature, which limits causal interpretation more than with interventions.”
While most governments are not pursuing restrictive practices, Metitieri said that “their approaches are based on their political ideology, often using moral panic as a means to rally support, showing their heartfelt commitment to defending against the invasions of digital technology ruining human civilizations.”
Sakshi Ghai, Mansfield’s fellow postdoctoral researcher at Oxford University, reiterated Metiteri’s concerns, “Screentime as a concept has limitations, and policy guidance needs to be careful when drawing insights from such limited evidence. What do we mean by screentime? How can time spent on different activities be clearly delineated? An oversimplistic focus on screentime may overlook the nuances and complexity of digital media use.”
The Key Is the What and Where
Digital screens can be productive for children, such as when used for educational purposes, be it to join a class over Zoom or partake in extracurricular educational activities. However, Ghai emphasized the importance of identifying what constitutes reasonable consumption of digital media. “Screens can help disadvantaged children achieve positive educational outcomes, particularly those with learning difficulties,” said Sakshi. “Using media to interact with other children can also bring positive social connections to racially diverse children or those from the LGBTQ community, which reiterates why finding the balance that allows children to reap the benefits of digital technology while safeguarding their mental, physical, and social health, is crucial.”
Tiziana Metitieri, Meyer Hospital, Italy.
The key is the relational environment in which these digital experiences occur.
On the other hand, Metitieri explained that there is evidence that passive exposure to educational content does not necessarily lead to growth benefits. “The key is the relational environment in which these digital experiences occur,” she said.
Mansfield said a lot of research describes excessive use of digital media as a form of addiction. “Some studies have attempted to validate and test ‘smartphone addiction’ scales for adolescent. Besides pathologizing an increasingly common activity, such self-report scales are highly subjective, implying serious limitations when attempting to define ‘cut offs’ or diagnostic thresholds.”
Previous efforts to determine benchmarks for screentime usage, focusing on the relationship between historical screen usage and present mental well-being, have overlooked the nature of the digital interaction and the social and technological backdrop. “Effects of screentime on children is a continuously changing, rapidly developing research field, and other contextual factors have been shown to play a greater role on mental health,” explained Mansfield.
Are School Bans Too Restrictive?
Implementing nationwide policies that warrant a dramatic shift in how we approach activities that have become second nature, such as using a mobile phone, is profoundly difficult, particularly as evidence is inconclusive and inconsistent. “The long-term effects of different types of digital content on children’s learning are yet to be clear, and most education-related research so far has been carried out with college students,” said Mansfield.
For concerned parents and schools, Metitieri advised against overly restrictive approaches. “Children and adolescents can find ways around restrictions at home and school, meaning that an overly restrictive approach is limited in its effectiveness,” she said. “The best way to adapt to the changes happening in education, relationships, work, and leisure is through a combination of experiences offline and digital education.”
Sakshi Ghai, Oxford University.
Screentime as a concept has limitations, and policy guidance needs to be careful when drawing insights from such limited evidence.
Mirroring Metitieri’s outlook, Mansfield suggested, “Restricting the use of smartphones and other personal devices is one method to reduce distraction, but ultimately, children will need to learn to optimise their use of digital devices.”
Recent Dutch media reports cited government ministers’ consultations with neuropsychiatrist Theo Compernolle, who compared children’s current smartphone usage patterns to addiction and suggested that such habits may hinder the development of the prefrontal cortex. However, Mansfield said, “There is no evidence to back up this claim.” Although she acknowledged the potential short-term benefits of a screentime ban in enhancing classroom concentration, she said, “One study directly tested this hypothesis and found no association between social media use and brain development, meaning that any claims of long-term effects remain purely speculative.”
The issue of children’s screentime is complex. Understanding the content and context of screentime, educating parents and teachers, and integrating digital experiences with offline activities seem to be the way forward. While governments contend with the complexities of managing this rather modern challenge, the balance between digital engagement and cognitive development remains a critical topic for continued research and thoughtful policymaking. Metitieri summed it up, “As adult members of the digital society, it is important for us to educate ourselves on how to effectively use online platforms before sharing our experiences and concerns about the online world with children and adolescents.”
>>> Read full article>>>
Copyright for syndicated content belongs to the linked Source : Medscape – https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/how-much-does-screentime-really-affect-child-development-2024a10000x4
