Young Children, Technology
\nand Early Education
\nCampaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood \u2022 Alliance for Childhood \u2022
\nTeachers Resisting Unhealthy Children\u2019s Entertainment
\nFacing
\nthe Screen Dilemma:
\nFacing the Screen Dilemma: Young children, technology and early education
\n\u00a9 2012 The Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood and the Alliance for Childhood
\nAll rights reserved.
\nFirst printing, October 2012
\nPrinted in the United States of America
\nCover and Graphic Design: Sonya Cohen Cramer
\nEditing: Colleen Cordes
\nProofreading: Shara Drew and Niki Matsoukas
\nFor permission to reprint or translate, contact info@allianceforchildhood.org
\nFacing the Screen Dilemma is available online at
\nwww.commercialfreechildhood.org
\nwww.allianceforchildhood.org
\nwww.truceteachers.org
\nwww.facebook.com\/screendilemma
\nSuggested Citation: Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, Alliance for Childhood, & Teachers
\nResisting Unhealthy Children\u2019s Entertainment (2012, October). Facing the Screen Dilemma: Young children,
\ntechnology and early education. Boston, MA: Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood; New York, NY:
\nAlliance for Childhood.
\nYoung Children, Technology and Early Education
\nFacing
\nthe Screen Dilemma:
\nCampaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood
\nAlliance for Childhood
\nTeachers Resisting Unhealthy Children\u2019s Entertainment
\n2 Facing the Screen Dilemma: Y o u n g C h i l d r e n , T ech n o l o g y a n d E a r ly E d u cat i o n
\nAcknowledgements
\nWe are grateful to our reviewers for their wise and thoughtful insights: Nancy CarlssonPaige, EdD; Sherry Cleary, MS; Colleen Cordes; Cliff Craine; Katherine Clunis D\u2019Andrea,
\nMA, MS; June Goldstein, MA; Jane Healy, PhD; Geralyn Bywater McLaughlin, MEd; Linda
\nRhoads, MS; Mary L. Ross; Mary Rothschild, MA; Yvonne Smith, MS; John Surr, JD; and
\nRosario Villasana, MA.
\nWe especially thank Josh Golin, who urged us to take this on and patiently read and
\ncommented on numerous drafts.
\nWe also want to thank the Concerned Educators Allied for a Safe Environment
\n(CEASE) for their generous contribution toward the costs of this publication.
\nContents
\nForeword …………………………………………………………………………………………. 3
\nIntroduction ……………………………………………………………………………………….4
\nWhat Research Tells Us about Screen Time and Young Children …………….. 5
\nWhether or Not You Use Screen Technology in Your Setting ………………….11
\nIf You Choose to Make Your Center Screen-Free ………………………………….. 13
\nIf You Choose to Incorporate Screen Technology in Your Setting ……………17
\nConclusion ……………………………………………………………………………………….18
\nRecommendations …………………………………………………………………………….19
\nEndnotes ………………………………………………………………………………………. 20
\nSuggested Reading ……………………………………………………………………………23
\nAbout the Authors …………………………………………………………………………….24
\nFacing the Screen Dilemma: Y o u n g C h i l d r e n , T ech n o l o g y a n d E a r ly E d u cat i o n 3
\nForeword
\nT he authors of this guide represent three organizations whose missions overlap in a
\ncommitment to the wellbeing of children. We share concerns about the escalating misuse and overuse of screen technologies in the lives of even the very young. We recognize the
\nprimary importance of nurturing young children\u2019s active and hands-on creative play, time
\nwith nature, and their face-to-face interactions with caring adults and other children. We see
\nhow screen time can interfere with these and other essentials of early childhood.
\nEach of us has worked with and for young children for decades. Our combined
\nexperience includes preschool teaching and preschool management, teacher education,
\nand helping children through play therapy. We each have worked intensively to mitigate
\nthe harmful effects of screen media on young children. That said, we are by no means
\ntechnophobes. Collectively we tweet, text, blog, Skype, and enjoy new technologies in all
\nsorts of ways. Our backgrounds include creating, and performing in, media programs for
\nyoung children and consulting on their content; helping teachers grapple with the impact
\nof media on children in their classrooms; and working extensively with families struggling with screen time issues.
\nBased on mounting evidence, we are worried about the harm done to children\u2019s health,
\ndevelopment, and learning in today\u2019s media-saturated, commercially-driven culture. It\u2019s
\nclear that both the nature of what children encounter on screens and the amount of time
\nthey spend with screens are vital issues. We agree with the American Academy of Pediatrics
\nand other public health organizations that many young children are spending too much
\ntime with screens\u2014and that screen time should be discouraged for infants and toddlers,
\nand carefully limited for older children.
\nIn the interests of children\u2019s wellbeing, we believe the early childhood community
\nneeds to study the issues surrounding screen technologies, make informed decisions about
\ntheir use in classrooms and child care settings, and work with parents to manage screen
\ntime and content in ways that best serve young children.
\nSusan Linn, EdD
\nCampaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood (CCFC)
\nJoan Almon
\nAlliance for Childhood
\nDiane Levin, PhD
\nTeachers Resisting Unhealthy Children\u2019s Entertainment (TRUCE)
\nThere\u2019s no
\nquestion
\nthat screen
\ntechnologies
\nare drastically
\nchanging the
\nlives of children.
\nAs a result,
\nearly childhood
\neducators face
\na complex
\ndilemma.
\n4 Facing the Screen Dilemma: Y o u n g C h i l d r e n , T ech n o l o g y a n d E a r ly E d u cat i o n
\nIntroduction
\nSmart boards. Smartphones. Tablets. E-books, and more. The rapid influx of new screen
\ndevices poses a special challenge for the early childhood community. A child born today
\nwill experience wondrous technologies few of us can even imagine. How do we best support
\nchildren\u2019s growth, development, and learning in a world radically changed by technology?
\nArriving at a truly child-centered answer to these questions is complicated by several
\nfactors. The new technologies are exciting and often equated with progress. They are evolving so quickly that our grasp of how to make and operate them has rapidly outpaced our
\nunderstanding of the educational, developmental, ethical, and social ramifications of their
\ndesign and use.
\nOne big challenge is that it\u2019s hard to find objective information about whether to use
\nany sort of screen technology in early childhood settings. Much of what\u2019s available comes
\nfrom companies whose profits depend on the sale of these devices or content for them, or
\nfrom organizations receiving financial support from such companies. There is a dearth of
\nindependent research about their impact\u2014and most of what does exist focuses on television. Yet funding for early childhood centers, particularly in low-income communities, is
\nincreasingly targeted for digital technology\u2014making its inclusion understandably attractive
\nto cash-strapped programs.
\nTo complicate matters further, the new technologies\u2014such as smartphones and tablets\u2014are marketed as \u201cinteractive,\u201d as opposed to \u201cold technologies\u201d such as television and
\nvideo. But these categories are not always accurate. If new technologies merely offer children a choice between a predetermined set of options, then how much true give-and-take do
\nthey really allow?
\nThis guide is designed to help you and\u2014with your support\u2014the families with whom
\nyou work make informed decisions about whether, why, how, and when to use screen technologies with young children. It provides an overview of the research on screen time and
\nyoung children. And it offers guidance for those who want their programs to be screen-free,
\nas well as for those who choose to incorporate technology in their settings.
\nFor the purpose of this guide,
\nthe terms \u201cscreen technologies,\u201d
\n\u201cscreens,\u201d \u201cmedia,\u201d and \u201cscreen
\nmedia\u201d are used interchangeably to
\ndescribe the general category of electronic devices that include screens.
\nAlso, it is important to note that our
\nconcerns about technology and young
\nchildren do not extend to digital
\nphotography or programs such as
\nSkype that enable communication with
\ndistant family and friends.
\nTerminology
\nThe American
\nAcademy of
\nPediatrics and
\nother public
\nhealth organizations and agencies recommend
\ndiscouraging
\nscreen time for
\nchildren under
\n2 and no more
\nthan 1 to 2 hours
\nper day (excluding schoolwork)
\nfor older children.
\nAmerican Academy of
\nPediatrics Council on
\nCommunications and
\nMedia (2010).
\nFacing the Screen Dilemma: Y o u n g C h i l d r e n , T ech n o l o g y a n d E a r ly E d u cat i o n 5
\nWhat Research Tells Us about
\nScreen Time and Young Children*
\nBeginning in infancy, screen technologies dominate the lives of many young children,
\nand they have significantly altered childhood.1 2 3 But how do we best support young
\nchildren\u2019s health, development, and learning in a digital world? To date, research tells us
\nthat screen time has no real benefit for infants and toddlers.4 For older children, the context
\nin which they use media, the nature of the content they experience, and the amount of time
\nthey spend with screens are all important considerations.5
\nFor children over 3, studies show that some exposure to thoughtfully constructed media
\ncontent can promote pro-social behaviors6
\nand contribute to learning,7
\nespecially when a
\ncaring adult is actively involved.8
\nOn the other hand, some screen content can be harmful to children. Games and digital
\nactivities that limit children to a predetermined set of responses have been shown to diminish creativity.9 Exposure to media violence is linked to aggression, desensitization to violence, and lack of empathy for victims.10 Media violence is also associated with poor school
\nperformance.11
\nEven the formal features of media content\u2014the visual techniques used in programming\u2014can affect young children. For preschoolers, watching just 20 minutes of a fastpaced cartoon show has been shown to have a negative impact on executive function skills,
\nincluding attention, the ability to delay gratification, self-regulation, and problem solving.12
\nSetting limits on the time young children spend with screen technologies is as important as monitoring content is for their health, development, and learning. The new
\ntechnologies haven\u2019t displaced television and video in children\u2019s lives\u2014they have added to
\nscreen time.13 Extensive screen time is linked to a host of problems for children including
\nchildhood obesity,14 sleep disturbance,15 16 and learning,17 attention,18 and social problems.19
\nAnd time with screens takes away from other activities known to be more beneficial to their
\ngrowth and development.20
\nMedia use begins in infancy. On any given day, 29% of babies under the age of 1 are
\nwatching TV and videos for an average of about 90 minutes. Twenty-three percent have
\na television in their bedroom.21 Time with screens increases rapidly in the early years.
\nBetween their first and second birthday, on any given day, 64% of babies and toddlers are
\nwatching TV and videos, averaging slightly over 2 hours. Thirty-six percent have a television
\nin their bedroom.22 Little is known about the amount of time children under 2 currently
\nspend with smartphones and tablets, but in 2011 there were three million downloads just of
\nFisher Price apps for infants and toddlers.23
\n* A version of this section first appeared in Linn, S. (2012). Healthy kids in a digital world: A strategic plan to
\nreduce screen time for children 0-5 through organizational policy and practice change. A report by the Campaign for a
\nCommercial-Free Childhood for Kaiser Permanente Community Health Initiatives Grants Program. Available at:
\nhttp:\/\/www.commercialfreechildhood.org\/healthykidsdigitalworld
\nThe new
\ntechnologies
\nhaven\u2019t
\ndisplaced
\ntelevision
\nand video in
\nchildren\u2019s lives\u2014
\nthey have added
\nto screen time.
\n6 Facing the Screen Dilemma: Y o u n g C h i l d r e n , T ech n o l o g y a n d E a r ly E d u cat i o n
\nData vary on screen time for preschoolers. But even the most conservative findings
\nshow that children between the ages of 2 and 5 average 2.2 hours per day.24 Other studies
\nshow that preschoolers spend as much as 4.125 to 4.6 hours26 per day using screen media. As
\nchildren grow older, screen time increases and they tend to use more than one medium at
\nthe same time. Including when they\u2019re multi-tasking, 8- to 18-year-olds consume an average of 7 hours and 11 minutes of screen media per day\u2014an increase of 2.5 hours in just 10
\nyears.27
\nMore research is needed. There is, for instance, some evidence that, for preschoolers,
\nhaving limited access to a computer at home may contribute to learning, while access to
\nvideo games does not. But the researchers did not track what children were doing on the
\ncomputer. They also found that using a computer just once a week is more beneficial than
\nusing it every day\u2014suggesting a little may go a long way, and that too much screen time
\nmay interfere with learning for young children.28
\nTo get a sense of how and why too much screen time can negatively affect learning, and
\npromote or exacerbate other problems for children, it\u2019s important to look first at what young
\nchildren need for healthy growth and development.
\nNurturing healthy brain development
\nModern science confirms what the early childhood community has known for years\u2014that
\ninfants, toddlers, and young children learn through exploring with their whole bodies,
\nincluding all of their senses. For optimal development, in addition to food and safety, they
\nneed love. They need to be held, and they need plenty of face-to-face positive interactions
\nwith caring adults. Developing children thrive when they are talked to, read to, and played
\nwith. They need time for hands-on creative play, physically active play, and give-and-take
\ninteractions with other children and adults. They benefit from a connection with nature and
\nopportunities to initiate explorations of their world.29
\nIn the last few decades, discoveries in the neurosciences have made clear why the early
\nyears of life are so critical. The basic architecture of the human brain develops through an
\nongoing, evolving, and predictable process that begins before birth and continues into adulthood. Early experiences literally shape how the brain gets built. A strong foundation in the
\nearly years increases the probability of positive outcomes later. A weak foundation does just
\nthe opposite.30
\nBabies begin life with brains comprised of huge numbers of neurons, some of which
\nare connected to each other, and many of which are not. As children grow and develop,
\neverything they experience affects which neurons get connected to other neurons. Repeated
\nexperiences strengthen those connections, shaping children\u2019s behavior, habits, values, and
\nresponses to future experiences. The experiences young children don\u2019t have also influence
\nbrain development. Neurons that aren\u2019t used\u2014or synaptic connections that aren\u2019t repeat29% of babies under 1 year watch TV and videos for an average of 90 minutes.
\n64% of children 12 \u2013 24 months watch TV and videos averaging just over 2 hours.
\nOn any given day….
\n\u201cIt’s our insides
\nthat make us
\nwho we are,
\nthat allow us
\nto dream and
\nwonder and
\nfeel for others.
\nThat’s what’s
\nessential. That’s
\nwhat will always
\nmake the biggest
\ndifference in our
\nworld.\u201d
\nFred Rogers
\nFacing the Screen Dilemma: Y o u n g C h i l d r e n , T ech n o l o g y a n d E a r ly E d u cat i o n 7
\ned\u2014are pruned away, while remaining connections are strengthened.31 This means that
\nhow young children spend their time can have important, lifelong ramifications. For better
\nor worse, repeated behaviors\u2014including behaviors such as watching television, playing
\nvideo games, and playing with phone apps\u2014can become biologically compelled habits.32
\nIn fact, behavioral research shows that the more time young children spend with screens,
\nthe more they watch later on,33 and the more difficulty they have turning off screens as they
\nbecome older.34
\nMost of the research on screen addiction has focused on television. But studies are
\nbeginning to document the addictive potential of computers and video games as well.35 New
\nneuro-imaging techniques provide biological evidence of the addictive properties of some
\nscreen media. Dopamine, a neurotransmitter associated with pleasure, reward, and alertness, is released in the brain during fast-moving video games36 in a manner similar to its
\nrelease after the consumption of some addictive drugs.37 In a survey of children 8 to 18 years
\nold, one in four said that they \u201cfelt addicted\u201d to video games.38
\nThe impact of excessive screen time on development
\nand wellbeing
\nResearch links many of the health and social problems facing children today to hours spent
\nwith screens.
\nThe erosion of creative play and interaction with caring adults: Studies show that the more
\ntime infants, toddlers, and preschoolers spend with screens, the less time they spend engaged in two activities essential to healthy development and learning.39 Screen-time takes
\nchildren away from hands-on creative play\u2014the kind of give-and-take activities that children
\ngenerate and control, and that are specific to their interests and abilities.40
\nScreens also take time away from children\u2019s interactions with caring adults. Even when
\nparents co-view television or videos with children, they spend less time engaged in other
\nactivities with their children.41 And parents talk less to children when they are watching
\ntelevision together than when they are engaged in other activities.42 In fact, they talk less to
\nchildren when television is on in the background as well.43 Newer technologies may also interfere with parent-child conversations. The so-called interactive electronic books\u2014in which
\nscreen images respond to touch with sound effects or words or simple movements\u2014are
\nless likely to induce the kind of adult-child interactions that promote literacy than traditional
\nbooks do.44
\nFor young children, the added sounds and movements associated with many e-books
\nhave been linked to lower levels of story understanding and may hinder aspects of emerging literacy.45 There is little or no research about literacy, young children, and the web. But
\nScreen time increases as children grow
\nData vary on screen time for preschoolers. The most conservative findings show that
\nchildren between the ages of 2 and 5 average 2.2 hours per day. Other studies show
\nthat preschoolers spend as much as 4.1 to 4.6 hours per day using screen media.
\nIncluding multi-tasking, children 8 to 18 spend 7.5 hours per day with screens.
\nFor better or
\nworse, repeated
\nbehaviors\u2014
\nincluding behaviors such as
\nwatching television, playing
\nvideo games,
\nand playing
\nwith phone
\napps\u2014can
\nbecome biologically compelled
\nhabits.
\n8 Facing the Screen Dilemma: Y o u n g C h i l d r e n , T ech n o l o g y a n d E a r ly E d u cat i o n
\nit\u2019s important to note that studies of adults suggest that attributes of the internet, such as
\nhyperlinks and the rapid introduction of new information, may undermine reading comprehension as well as deep thinking.46
\nUndermining learning, school performance, and peer relationships: For children under 3,
\nresearch demonstrates that screen media are a poor tool for learning language and vocabulary47 and suggests that they are actually linked to delayed language acquisition.48 In
\ncontrast, socio-dramatic play has been associated with significant gains in language use
\nand comprehension.49 By the time children turn 10, every additional hour of television they
\nwatched as toddlers is associated with lower math and school achievement, reduced physical
\nactivity, and victimization by classmates in middle childhood.50
\nSchool-age children with 2 or more hours of daily screen time are more likely to have
\nincreased psychological difficulties, including hyperactivity, emotional problems, and difficulties with peers.51
\nGiven that children\u2019s screen time increases as they get older, it\u2019s important to note
\nthat negative effects continue through adolescence. Time with television and video games
\nhas been linked to problems with attention.52 Adolescents who watch 3 or more hours of
\ntelevision daily are at especially high risk for poor homework completion, negative attitudes toward school, poor grades, and long-term academic failure.53 Studies of new media
\nare only just beginning to emerge. Even as social networking sites are being marketed to
\nyoung children, a study by Stanford University researchers has found that girls ages 8 to12
\nwho are heavy users of social media are less happy and more socially uncomfortable than
\ntheir peers.54
\nChildhood obesity: Starting in early childhood, time with screen media is an important risk
\nfactor for childhood obesity.55 56 57 The more time preschoolers spend watching television,
\nthe more junk food58 and fast food59 they are likely to eat. In fact, for each hour of television
\nviewing per day, children, on average, consume an additional 167 calories.60
\nStudies also show that increased food intake and overweight are linked to video-game
\nuse.61 And while active video games were heralded as a means of encouraging exercise in
\nchildren, those who own active video games, such as those for the Wii video-game console,
\ndo not show an increase in physical activity.62
\nSleep disturbance: Hours with television are linked to irregular sleep patterns in infants and
\ntoddlers63 and to sleep disturbance in preschoolers64 and children ages 6 to 12.65 Time with
\nvideo games is also linked to sleep disturbance in children and adolescents.66
\nExtensive exposure to harmful commercialism: Since the advent of television, screen media
\nhave been targeting children with advertising for a host of products including food, toys,
\nclothing, accessories, and more. With the weakening of federal regulations in the 1980s and
\nthe proliferation of media produced for kids, marketing to children has increased exponentially. In 1983, companies were spending $100 million annually targeting children.67 Now
\nthey are spending over $17 billion.68
\nMost screen media for children is commercially driven. And beloved screen characters
\nroutinely market products and more media to young viewers\u2014to the detriment of their
\n\u201cAt Google
\nand all these
\nplaces, we make
\ntechnology as
\nbrain-dead easy
\nto use as possible. There\u2019s no
\nreason why kids
\ncan\u2019t figure it out
\nwhen they get
\nolder.\u201d
\nGoogle executive, Alan
\nEagle, quoted in Richtel,
\nM. (2011, October 21). A
\nSilicon Valley school that
\ndoesn\u2019t compute. New York
\nTimes, p. A1.
\nFacing the Screen Dilemma: Y o u n g C h i l d r e n , T ech n o l o g y a n d E a r ly E d u cat i o n 9
\nhealth and wellbeing. Childhood obesity,69 discontent about body image70 and eating disorders,71 sexualization,72 youth violence,73 family stress,74 underage drinking,75 and underage
\ntobacco use76 are all linked to screen-based advertising and marketing. So is the erosion of
\ncreative play.77 In addition, research shows that, regardless of their commercial content,
\ntelevision and videos are less apt to generate creativity and imagination than books\u2014which
\nrequire more of children.78
\nFor over 30 years, the food, marketing, media, and toy industries have successfully
\nblocked meaningful government regulation of marketing to children. They have many
\navenues for reaching children, but advertising on screen media is their primary gateway.
\nReducing the amount of time children spend with screens is one of the few immediately
\navailable strategies for limiting marketers\u2019 access to, and impact on, children.
\nAbout the digital divide
\nProponents of incorporating new technologies into early childhood settings argue that
\nyoung children from low-income families must acquire \u201ctechnology handling skills\u201d or
\nthey will fall behind children from wealthier communities.79 Since many children in lowincome communities lag behind in experiences important to learning and literacy, such
\nas early exposure to a rich and varied vocabulary80 and access to books,81 it is argued that
\npostponing, or reducing, experiences with new technologies will create another barrier to
\nacademic success.
\nThe term \u201cdigital divide\u201d was coined in the 1960s to describe inequalities in access to
\ncomputer technology.82 By the 1990s, its meaning expanded to include inequality in access
\nto the internet.83 Inequality in access still exists, but the gap is closing.84 The meaning of the
\ndigital divide has become more nuanced, especially for children. Concern is growing about
\nhow they are using the new screen technologies, how much time they spend, and what it\u2019s
\nreplacing.
\nAccording to a survey published in 2011, children ages 0 to 8 from low-income families spend significantly more time with television and videos than their wealthier peers.85 It
\nalso shows that there is still a significant gap in ownership of home computers and mobile
\ndevices such as smartphones and tablets.86
\nAt the same time, data from the survey showing the relationship between income
\nlevel and how much time young children spend with new technologies paint a more ambiguous picture. Children from all income levels spend about the same amount of time
\nplaying games on digital devices and engaged in other computer-based activities including
\nhomework.87
\nAdditional information is clearly needed for early childhood educators to make informed decisions about technology and the needs of children from low-income communities. Rapid developments in the availability and pricing of mobile devices will likely affect
\naccess and the amount of time children spend with them. As yet, there is no evidence that
\nintroducing screen technologies in early childhood means children will be more adept
\nwhen they\u2019re older. That means we can\u2019t make an evidence-based comparison to \u201cbookhandling skills.\u201d And, finally, there is an urgent need for research to determine if adding
\nscreen technologies of any kind in early childhood settings will increase or decrease gaps
\nin achievement.
\nModern science
\nconfirms what
\nthe early childhood community has known
\nfor years\u2014that
\ninfants, toddlers,
\nand young
\nchildren learn
\nthrough exploring with their
\nwhole bodies,
\nincluding all of
\ntheir senses.
\n1 0 Facing the Screen Dilemma: Y o u n g C h i l d r e n , T ech n o l o g y a n d E a r ly E d u cat i o n
\nConclusion
\nMore independent research is needed on the impact of screen technologies on young children. But whether you believe that early childhood settings should include screen time or
\nnot, there is enough evidence to draw these conclusions: Many young children are spending
\ntoo much time with screens at the expense of other important activities. There\u2019s no evidence
\nthat screen time is educational for infants and toddlers, and there is some evidence that it
\nmay be harmful. Some carefully monitored experience with quality content can benefit children over 3. But what\u2019s most important for children is lots of time for hands-on creative and
\nactive play, time in nature, and face-to-face interactions with caring adults. And, regardless
\nof content, excessive screen time harms healthy growth and development.
\nBased on the available research, the next three sections of this guide contain practical
\ninformation and suggestions for making your own decisions about using screen technologies with young children.
\nThe American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Public Health Association, and the National
\nResource Center for Health and Safety in Child Care and Early Education recommend the following
\nguidelines for screen time in early care and early education settings:
\n\u2022 In early care and education settings, media (television [TV], video, and DVD) viewing and computer use should not be permitted for children younger than two years.
\n\u2022 For children two years and older in early care and early education settings, total media time
\nshould be limited to not more than 30 minutes once a week, and for educational or physical activity use only.
\n\u2022 During meal or snack time, TV, video, or DVD viewing should not be allowed.
\n\u2022 Computer use should be limited to no more than 15-minute increments except for homework and
\nfor children who require and consistently use assistive and adaptive computer technology.
\n\u2022 Parents\/guardians should be informed if screen media are used in the early care and education
\nprogram.
\n\u2022 Any screen media used should be free of advertising and brand placement. TV programs, DVD,
\nand computer games should be reviewed and evaluated before participation of the children to
\nensure that advertising and brand placement are not present.
\nAmerican Academy of Pediatrics, American Public Health Association, National Resource Center for Health and Safety in Child Care
\nand Early Education (2011). Caring for our children: National health and safety performance standards; Guidelines for early care and education
\nprograms (3rd ed.). Elk Grove Village, IL: American Academy of Pediatrics; Washington, DC: American Public Health Association.
\nFacing the Screen Dilemma: Y o u n g C h i l d r e n , T ech n o l o g y a n d E a r ly E d u cat i o n 1 1
\nWhether or Not You
\nUse Screen Technology
\nin Your Setting
\nI
\nt is vital for professionals working with children today, no matter what role technology
\nplays in their own setting, to understand how screens can affect children\u2019s development
\nand learning, and to take this understanding into account in their work with children and
\nparents.*
\n1. Try to determine if and how technology is affecting the performance and behavior of
\nthe children in your care, and then work to counteract any harmful effects you identify.
\nChildren\u2019s exposure to screens at home and elsewhere will influence their classroom
\nlearning and behavior\u2014for instance, their interests, what they know and want to know,
\nhow they play, and what they want to play. To address these problems, you can:
\n\u2022 Help children who are dependent on screen-related content and activities to
\nbecome deeply engaged with interests and activities in the real world that do not
\ninvolve following someone else\u2019s program on a screen. Promoting creative play is
\none of the most effective ways to do this. Engaging children in real world, hands-on
\nactivities such as cooking, gardening, and woodworking is another.
\n\u2022 Support children\u2019s efforts to deal with the content they see on screens. For instance,
\nwhen children talk, play, or make paintings about what they have viewed, they are
\noften looking for ways to understand or work through something that distressed
\nthem. Observing how they express this can teach you a lot about the kinds of support they may need to work things out. Helping children feel safe talking about it
\nwith you is one key way you can support their efforts to make sense of and influence
\nthe lessons they may have learned.
\n2. Work closely with parents on technology issues.
\n\u2022 Share with parents how you are addressing screen issues and why you have decided
\non your particular approach. And ask them how they use screens at home.
\n\u2022 Let parents know you are available as a resource, not as a critic, to support their efforts to resolve the technology issues that come up in their family life.
\n\u2022 Use your regular channels of communication with parents to share information about:
\nq How electronic technologies can influence development and learning, as well
\nas strategies that support parents who are dealing with those influences.
\n* For more information on implementing many of the suggestions in this section of the guide, go to D. Levin,
\nBeyond Remote-Controlled Childhood: Teaching Young Children in the Media Age on how to deal with the impact of
\nmedia and technology on the children in your classroom or setting. (Washington, DC, National Association for the
\nEducation of Young Children, in press.)
\nChildren\u2019s
\nexposure to
\nscreens at home
\nand elsewhere
\nwill influence
\ntheir classroom
\nlearning and
\nbehavior\u2014for
\ninstance, their
\ninterests, what
\nthey know and
\nwant to know,
\nhow they play,
\nand what they
\nwant to play.
\n1 2 Facing the Screen Dilemma: Y o u n g C h i l d r e n , T ech n o l o g y a n d E a r ly E d u cat i o n
\nq Your specific observations about how you think screens may be influencing
\ntheir child in your care, and strategies you have developed to respond.
\nq Help parents make thoughtful decisions about both the quantity and quality of
\nscreens in children\u2019s lives.
\nq As you work with parents and children, make sure you take into account their
\ncultural heritage, economic circumstances, and diverse values.
\nq Share specific resources to help parents deal with media and technology in
\ntheir homes. For instance:
\np TRUCE Action Guides (www.truceteachers.org) will help parents deal with
\nscreens and promote play in supportive and user-friendly ways.
\np The \u201cLet\u2019s Move!\u201d initiative (www.letsmove.gov), created by Michelle
\nObama, helps parents promote physical activity for children as an alternative to screen time and makes recommendations regarding media.
\n\u2022 Strive to create channels of communication among the parents of your children so
\nthey feel comfortable discussing media issues and supporting each other\u2019s efforts.
\nFor example, host a screening of the film \u201cConsuming Kids\u201d or \u201cMickey Mouse
\nMonopoly\u201d (available at: www.mediaeducation.org) as a springboard for discussion
\namong parents.
\n3. Consider the cost effectiveness of spending money on technology. Will the expense of
\nthe equipment, staff training for its proper use, and maintenance be the best use of the
\nlimited budgets of many early childhood settings?
\n4. Participate in the annual Screen-Free Week, a national event, when children, families,
\nschools, and whole communities turn off entertainment screen media and \u201cturn on life.\u201d
\n\u2022 Screen-Free Week provides a wonderful opportunity to enjoy life without relying
\non screens for entertainment. In addition to being fun, it is a time to reflect on: 1)
\nhow screen media affects the lives of children and families, at home and in school;
\n2) what life is like without screen entertainment; 3) what children and families like
\nto do besides watching screens; and 4) how to use what everyone learns during
\nScreen-Free Week to make long-term changes in screen use.
\n\u2022 The \u201cScreen-Free Week Organizer\u2019s Kit\u201d (www.screenfree.org) will help you begin.
\nHelp parents
\nnurture screenfree, creative
\nplay at home
\nand be aware
\nof its benefits
\nfor learning and
\ndevelopment.
\nProvide concrete
\nsuggestions for
\ninexpensive play
\nactivities that can
\nengage young
\nchildren.
\nFacing the Screen Dilemma: Y o u n g C h i l d r e n , T ech n o l o g y a n d E a r ly E d u cat i o n 1 3
\nIf You Choose to Make
\nYour Center Screen-Free
\nOffering a screen-free setting is a valid and pedagogically sound choice. Many excellent
\npreschools, child care centers, and kindergartens are choosing this option. Because
\nit is counter to the prevailing culture, however, it can be challenging to explain to parents
\nand others. Parents seek the best opportunities for their children. They may need help in
\nunderstanding why a screen-free environment will give their child a strong foundation in
\nbroad-based learning. So be prepared for questions. You will create your own best answers,
\nbut below are some common questions with some key points to help you respond. Sharing
\ninformation from the research section of this guide will also help to explain your decision.
\nWhy do you place so much emphasis on hands-on learning and play instead of giving kids
\ntime to learn with technology?
\nLongitudinal research shows that experiential learning\u2014where teachers engage young students in physically active, creative ways, combined with ample time for child-initiated play\u2014
\nis essential for children to thrive developmentally in preschool and kindergarten.88 There is
\nno comparable research showing that screen-based learning is as effective. The content may
\nappear rich. But the actual experience of learning through screens pales for young children
\nwhen contrasted to learning that involves the mind, the emotions, and the body, including
\nthe senses. Also, as the research section in this guide reports, there is mounting evidence of
\nharm related to too much screen time.
\nSome educators and occupational therapists are reporting that many school children now
\nneed special therapy to develop the use of their hands.89 The issue is gaining increasing attention but needs to be researched. Anecdotally at least, it seems that children are less able to use
\ntheir hands for creative activities and work-related tasks than has been the case in the past.
\nThe hand is constructed for a large variety of complex motions. Increasingly, however, children
\nspend long hours using their hands for a narrow set of skills linked to screens and digital toys.
\nOne elementary school principal explained to The New York Times why he hired an occupational therapist to work with all of his students, not just those with recognized disabilities,
\nas would normally be the case.
\n\u201c\u2018\u2026 in the last five years, I\u2019ve seen a dramatic increase in the number of kids who don\u2019t
\nhave the strength in their hands to wield a scissors or do arts and crafts projects, which
\nin turn prepares them for writing.\u2019 Many kindergartners in his community, he said,
\nhave taken music appreciation classes or participated in adult-led sports teams or yoga.
\nAnd most have also logged serious time in front of a television or a computer screen.
\nBut very few have had unlimited opportunities to run, jump and skip, or make mud
\npies and break twigs. \u2018I\u2019m all for academic rigor,\u2019 he said, \u2018but these days I tell parents
\nthat letting their child mold clay, play in the sand or build with Play-Doh builds important school-readiness skills, too.\u2019\u201d90
\n\u201cIt could be
\nargued that
\nactive play is so
\ncentral to child
\ndevelopment
\nthat it should be
\nincluded in the
\nvery definition of
\nchildhood.\u201d
\nAmerican Academy of
\nPediatrics
\n1 4 Facing the Screen Dilemma: Y o u n g C h i l d r e n , T ech n o l o g y a n d E a r ly E d u cat i o n
\nA center without technology seems so old-fashioned. Won\u2019t my child lag behind if she is not
\nintroduced to digital technologies?
\nThere is no evidence to support the popular view\u2014heavily promoted by companies that sell
\nelectronic media\u2014that children must start early if they are to succeed in the digital age. And
\nas smartphones and other new technologies become less expensive, more and more very
\nyoung children are already spending too much time with them at home. Great innovators
\nin the computer industry like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs did not even experience computers
\nuntil they were about 12. But both had wide experiences with hands-on learning when they
\nwere young. Gates was a Cub Scout, and Jobs spoke of his love for tinkering with the inner
\nworkings of radios and televisions as a boy.
\nTinkering, a creative form of hands-on exploration and play, has been found to be of
\ngreat importance for later problem solving in engineering and other fields.91 Because such
\nhands-on experiences foster creativity and constructive problem solving, they are especially
\nimportant for young children whose lives are dominated by screens. Research suggests that,
\nas a society, our creativity is declining,92 yet it is central to leading a meaningful life and to
\nsuccess in the workplace. A global survey of 1,500 CEOs found that they named creativity as
\nthe number one attribute for leadership.93
\nAndreas Schleicher is an educational analyst for the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), an international organization that manages the PISA
\ntest.94 This is a highly regarded test for teens given in the wealthiest countries. Schleicher
\nvisits classrooms in the best performing countries to find out what they are doing right.
\nHe finds that the successful systems seem to \u201cplace their efforts primarily on pedagogical
\npractice rather than digital gadgets.\u201d95
\nMy preschooler is so smart. At home she does amazing things on any touch screen.
\nShouldn\u2019t we be encouraging this kind of intelligence at school as well?
\nTechnological know-how is one kind of intelligence. But there are many other forms that
\nneed to be developed in early childhood, including physical skills, social-emotional learning, the cognitive development that stems from active exploration and problem solving
\nin a child\u2019s own physical environment, oral language skills, and the creative use of a wide
\nvariety of play objects. These take time and often some adult support if they are to develop
\nfully. In early childhood settings, children also have a unique opportunity to work with other
\nchildren on projects, to build structures together, and to develop play scenarios that are rich
\nand meaningful. We share books and stories that require children to actively exercise their
\nimaginations to bring the sounds and images to life, unlike high-tech versions that do the
\nwork for the children. At our center, we focus on the development of all these abilities.
\nAren\u2019t screen technologies just another tool? Why not just consider them to be one more tool
\namong many in the early childhood environment?
\nElectronic screen technologies are tools, but these very powerful devices were designed
\nprimarily with adult needs and adult capacities in mind. Throughout history human beings
\nhave used tools, which have helped shape our lives. It\u2019s a great help if children can learn to
\nuse basic tools first\u2014such as hammers and nails, and cooking and gardening tools\u2014that
\nare objects they can fully manipulate and control themselves.
\nDeveloping children thrive when
\nthey are talked
\nto, read to, and
\nplayed with. They
\nneed time for
\nhands-on creative
\nplay, physically
\nactive play, and
\ngive-and-take
\ninteractions with
\nother children
\nand adults. They
\nbenefit from a
\nconnection with
\nnature and opportunities to initiate
\nexplorations of
\ntheir world.
\nFacing the Screen Dilemma: Y o u n g C h i l d r e n , T ech n o l o g y a n d E a r ly E d u cat i o n 1 5
\nScreen technologies hide the real work from our eyes and hands. Their workings are
\ninside, determined by far-distant programmers. Children like to know how things work.
\nThey typically take things apart and put them back together, but that\u2019s not possible with
\ncomputers.
\nBecause changes on a screen happen so quickly and because screens are so compelling,
\nchildren can become passive, content to let the technologies set the parameters, rather than
\nexercising their own skills and curiosity.
\nAlso, because digital technologies are powerful tools, they require mature judgment to
\nknow when and how to use them well\u2014and how to avoid the pitfalls of misuse. There are
\nways to prepare children so they can later make mature judgments based on their own ideas
\nand internal direction. Simply putting advanced tools into the hands of very young children
\nshortcuts important steps in the learning process and can lead to an over-dependence on
\nwhat others offer them.96
\nWhat are the differences between passive and interactive screens? Wouldn\u2019t it help to just
\nprovide young children with interactive technologies and curtail passive technology, such as
\ntelevision and videos?
\nThe term \u201cpassive media\u201d is often used by proponents of new technologies in early childhood settings to describe media that children watch, such as television and videos. \u201cActive
\nmedia\u201d describes devices such as touch screens that allow children to influence what\u2019s on
\nthe screen. But it\u2019s a distinction that doesn\u2019t really make sense. Thoughtfully made television
\nand video programming for children over 3\u2014and books, for that matter\u2014can be interactive
\nwhen they encourage children to wrestle with ideas and feelings, or when they prompt children to try new activities later. An app or any activity using new technologies can be \u201cpassive\u201d when it promotes only imitation or programmed responses, or presents preset choices
\nfor how to respond. These products actively engage children\u2019s finger-tips but not their minds
\nand emotions.
\nAs Lisa Guernsey writes in Slate magazine:
\n\u201cChild development specialists say young children learn best when they are fully engaged and imbued with a feeling of control. They encourage parents to seek out more
\nopen-ended games and toys in which children could explore and create at their own
\npace. Yet at the moment, not many apps are built with this approach in mind.\u201d97
\nShe goes on to cite an Australian study that examined the 10 best-selling apps for young
\nchildren in each of three countries: Australia, the United States, and the United Kingdom.
\nThe researchers found that only 2% of the 30 programs could be considered open-ended,
\ncreative programs, while 78% were essentially drill and practice programs. The remaining
\napps offered several choices from a limited set of options.98
\nBut no app or other digital media is as responsive and interactive as a live teacher, parent, or playmate can be.
\nI want to work with parents on reducing screen time at home. They frequently ask me for a
\nguideline on how much is too much. Can you advise?
\nThe answer to your question is complicated. The public health community provides guideThe new technologies are exciting
\nand often equated with progress.
\nThey are evolving
\nso quickly that
\nour grasp of how
\nto make and
\noperate them has
\nrapidly outpaced
\nour understanding of the educational, developmental, ethical,
\nand social ramifications of their
\ndesign and use.
\n1 6 Facing the Screen Dilemma: Y o u n g C h i l d r e n , T ech n o l o g y a n d E a r ly E d u cat i o n
\nlines that discourage screen time for children under 2 and limit it to 1 to 2 hours per day for
\nchildren 2 and older. But many teachers find that even that much screen time can interfere
\nwith the ability of some young children to develop their own ideas in play, or to develop selfcontrol and other needed skills.
\nOne way to help parents is to ask them to take stock of how much time their children
\nspend with screens. When does screen time take place? How hard is it for them to stop?
\nHas screen time become a focus of family struggles? Encourage parents to choose content
\ncarefully. Help them come up with a plan that works for their family. Some may decide to
\ncut back, or limit screen time to weekends. Others may decide to eliminate screen time
\naltogether.
\nMy child has disabilities and benefits greatly from assistive technologies. Do the same recommendations for limiting screen time apply to her?
\nThere is always room for individual responses to the needs of children, both at home and
\nschool. Assistive technologies are extraordinarily helpful to many children with disabilities.
\nAt the same time, whenever possible, it is also important for children to develop skills and
\ncapacities that don\u2019t require technological support. In general, the wider the range of abilities that a child can develop, the better.
\nI work in a screen-free setting that serves low-income families. If it were up to me my classroom would remain screen-free, but we\u2019ve received a donation of tablets. I\u2019m under pressure
\nto use them, but I don\u2019t want them to dominate our work with the children. Any suggestions?
\nYou\u2019re in a difficult situation. Research is sorely needed to determine whether introducing
\nscreen technologies in early childhood settings has any impact on the achievement gap. But
\nif the decision to use the tablets is irrevocable, there are helpful suggestions in the section of
\nthis guide entitled, \u201cIf You Choose to Incorporate Screen Technology in Your Setting.\u201d Key
\namong them are: be intentional in making choices, establish rules and routines, and choose
\nscreen activities carefully. You can still make sure that your children spend most of their
\ntime engaged in the kinds of hands-on and active play, and experiential learning that are so
\ncentral to their development. Whenever possible, carve out class time for being outdoors.
\nThe public health community has set guidelines for all early care and education programs: Screen time \u201cshould not be permitted for children younger than two years. For children two years and older\u2026 total media time should be limited to not more than 30 minutes
\nonce a week, and for educational or physical activity use only.\u201d99
\nFinally, help parents nurture screen-free, creative play at home and be aware of its
\nbenefits for learning and development. Provide concrete suggestions for inexpensive play
\nactivities that can engage young children. Simple household materials like a sheet thrown
\nover a table to be a cave or house, or cardboard boxes for hiding in, can often keep children
\nbusy for long periods of time.
\nBehavioral
\nresearch shows
\nthat the more
\ntime young
\nchildren spend
\nwith screens, the
\nmore they watch
\nlater on, and the
\nmore difficulty
\nthey have turning off screens
\nas they become
\nolder.
\nFacing the Screen Dilemma: Y o u n g C h i l d r e n , T ech n o l o g y a n d E a r ly E d u cat i o n 1 7
\nIf You Choose to Incorporate
\nScreen Technology in Your Setting
\nI
\nf you decide to use screens with children, then it is important to do so in ways that do not
\nincrease problems associated with screens, and that promote their active engagement
\nwith developmentally appropriate, hands-on experiences and learning.
\nBe intentional: Have a carefully thought-out rationale for the technology you choose. This
\nincludes answering such questions as:
\n\u2022 Will this technology accomplish something that I could not do just as well or better
\nwithout it? If so, what?
\n\u2022 How exactly will this technology enhance or expand what I am already doing to help
\nmeet my learning and development goals for the children?
\n\u2022 Does it connect and build onto regular, real-life curricular activities already going on in
\nthe classroom? If so, how?
\n\u2022 How do I ensure that the children use the technology in ways that enrich and deepen
\ntheir current knowledge and skills?
\n\u2022 Can I provide clear boundaries for screen activities so that they do not increasingly
\ncreep into classroom life? How?
\n\u2022 How can I ensure that screen activities will not make children more dependent on
\nscreens and lure them away from real-world, hands-on activities?
\nEstablish technology rules and routines. The more you think things through in advance and
\nthen involve children in this process, the less stress, conflict, or creeping escalation of technology you will have. For instance, work with the children on:
\n\u2022 What specific technology is being used?
\n\u2022 When can it be used and when not? Specific time limits are important. Having screen
\nactivities with obvious end-points can help a lot with time limits.
\nActively facilitate children\u2019s involvement and learning before, during, and after any screen
\nactivity.
\n\u2022 Observe and document what the children do. Focus on such things as: What are they using? How are they using it? What differences do you see in what individual children
\ndo? Are there gender, race or class differences in the screen activities children choose
\nto do and not do? How does what they are doing connect to your goals for the activity?
\nDo things happen that you didn\u2019t expect? How can your observations inform what you
\ndo next with children and the activity? Are there negative aspects of the activity that you
\nhad not anticipated?
\nThe more you
\nthink things
\nthrough in
\nadvance and
\nthen involve
\nchildren in this
\nprocess, the less
\nstress, conflict,
\nor creeping
\nescalation of
\ntechnology you
\nwill have.
\n1 8 Facing the Screen Dilemma: Y o u n g C h i l d r e n , T ech n o l o g y a n d E a r ly E d u cat i o n
\n\u2022 Assignment help – Discuss the activity with the children afterwards. How do they think and feel about what
\nthey did? What connections can they make with their real-world experiences, including
\nthe hands-on curricular activity which the screen activity may have been intended to
\nenrich? How can they use what they learned to inform their non-screen activities?
\n\u2022 Keep track of what children do when the screen activity is over. Do they have a hard time
\nstopping? How do they handle the transition back to non-screen activities? How do they
\nbring what they did on the screen into other activities?
\nChoose screen activities carefully. The questions below will help you make appropriate choices:
\n\u2022 What is the nature of their content? Avoid content that contains: racial or ethnic stereotypes, violence, highly gender-divided behavior, or brand licensing (i.e., using popular
\nmedia themes and characters to promote the sale of products).
\n\u2022 What will the content contribute that non-screen activities cannot? Are there negative
\nways it can affect children? If so, how?
\n\u2022 Does the content promote positive social interaction and play among children? If so, how?
\nOr does it undermine play and\/or promote anti-social behavior?
\n\u2022 Will the screen activity interfere with the regular hands-on curriculum\u2014e.g., will it be
\nhard to end because there are no obvious end points, or because it is so \u201cexciting\u201d and
\nfast-paced that everything else can seem boring? Is it likely to influence children\u2019s interactions with other children, and if so, how?
\n\u2022 Is it likely to influence children\u2019s social interactions, and if so, how?
\nThink carefully about where screens are located and try to minimize their prominence. For
\ninstance:
\n\u2022 Have them in a clearly designated place where small groups of children can use them
\nwithout distracting children involved in other activities.
\n\u2022 When not in use, avoid the distraction screens can create for children by covering larger
\nones and placing small screens out of sight.
\nConclusion
\nThere\u2019s no question that screen technologies are drastically changing the lives of children.
\nAs a result, early childhood educators face a complex dilemma. How do we best support
\nchildren\u2019s growth, development, and learning in a culture increasingly reliant on screens?
\nWe hope the information in this guide will help you address some key questions:
\nShould screen technologies be included in a center\u2019s activities for children? If not, why not?
\nIf so, then why, how, when, and how much?
\nWhatever you decide, we hope that you will reach out to parents, helping them make
\nthoughtful decisions about both the time children spend with screens and the content they
\nexperience. Finally, we hope you will continue to provide children with what they need
\nmost\u2014active and hands-on creative play, time in nature, and lots of quality, screen-free time
\nwith caring adults.
\nConclusion
\nTo date, research
\ntells us that
\nscreen time has
\nno real benefit
\nfor infants and
\ntoddlers. For
\nolder children,
\nthe context
\nin which they
\nuse media, the
\nnature of the
\ncontent they
\nexperience, and
\nthe amount of
\ntime they spend
\nwith screens are
\nall important
\nconsiderations.
\n1. Early childhood professionals
\nneed to be well-informed about the
\nimplications of screen technologies
\nfor young children. It\u2019s important
\nfor individual settings to develop
\ninternal policies based on available evidence. Whether or not you
\nuse technology in your setting, we
\nrecommend the following:
\nAdvocate for courses and professional development programs
\nthat help teachers and caregivers
\nactively examine the pros, cons, and
\nimplications of screen technologies
\nfor their work with children.
\nApproach the claims made
\nabout the benefits of new technologies with lively interest and
\nan open mind, but also\u2014as you
\nwould with any sales pitch\u2014with
\nhealthy skepticism. Are the claims
\nbased on research by independent,
\nreputable researchers? Does the
\nperson or organization advocating
\nfor a product stand to profit from
\nits sale or depend on funding from
\nits manufacturer?
\nSupport the development of
\nbest practices that are evidencebased. Advocate for more independently funded research that
\nexamines the potential positive and
\nnegative effects\u2014especially longterm effects\u2014of screen technologies on young children.
\n2. Make intentional decisions about
\ntechnology. If you use technology in
\nthe classroom, understand why and
\nwhat you hope to accomplish with
\nit. If you do not use it, understand
\nwhy you are making that choice.
\nWeigh the costs and benefits carefully. New technologies can be
\nexpensive. Count on investing in
\nprofessional development, as well
\nas purchase price, maintenance,
\nand replacement costs. Given limited budgets, before buying screen
\ntechnologies, assess both what
\nyour program would gain and what
\nalternative opportunities would be
\ngiven up.
\n3. Keep in mind that choosing to
\nbe screen-free is a viable option. As
\nwith all your classroom decisions,
\nwhat you decide about technology
\nshould be based on what your particular children really need. While the
\nuse of technology in early childhood
\nsettings is increasingly common,
\nchoosing a screen-free, play-based
\nsetting for young children remains a
\npedagogically sound choice.
\n4. Work closely with parents.
\nKnowing how much time children
\nspend with screens at home\u2014and
\nthe nature of the content they are
\nexperiencing\u2014is central to making
\nan informed decision about screen
\ntechnologies in your classroom.
\nUnderstand why and how children
\nare using screens at home. Help
\nparents develop fun, affordable
\nalternatives to screen time and set
\nlimits on how much screens are
\nused. Regardless of content, children are harmed when a significant
\nportion of their time awake is spent
\nin front of a screen. Help those
\nwho allow screen time at home
\nto understand the importance of
\nselecting content carefully. No matter how few hours they spend with
\nscreens, children are harmed by
\nviolent, sexualized, stereotyped, or
\ncommercialized content.
\n5. Remember to keep settings for
\ninfants and toddlers screen-free and
\nto set developmentally appropriate time limits for older children.
\nThere\u2019s no evidence that screen time
\nis beneficial for children under 2
\nand some evidence that it may be
\nharmful. When setting time limits
\nfor older children, consider total
\nscreen time\u2014including time at
\nhome and time in the classroom.
\nThere is scant evidence that screen
\ntime is beneficial for children under
\n3, so total screen time for 2 to 3 year
\nolds should be minimal at most. For
\nyoung children over 3, the public
\nhealth recommendation of no more
\nthan 1 to 2 hours a day is more than
\nenough for total screen time.
\nRecommendations
\nabout Screen Technologies in Early Childhood Settings
\nFacing the Screen Dilemma: Y o u n g C h i l d r e n , T ech n o l o g y a n d E a r ly E d u cat i o n 1 9
\n2 0 Facing the Screen Dilemma: Y o u n g C h i l d r e n , T ech n o l o g y a n d E a r ly E d u cat i o n
\n1 Comstock, G. & Scharrer, E. (2007). Media and the
\nAmerican child. Burlington, MA: Academic Press.
\n2 Rideout, V. & Hamel, E. (2006). The media family: Electronic media in the lives of infants, toddlers,
\npreschoolers, and their parents, p. 5. Menlo Park, CA:
\nHenry J. Kaiser Foundation.
\n3 Vandewater, E. A., Rideout, V. J., Wartella, E. A.,
\nHuang, X., Lee, J. H., & Shim, M. (2007). Digital
\nchildhood: Electronic media and technology use
\namong infants, toddlers, and preschoolers. Pediatrics,
\n119(5), pp. 1006-1015.
\n4 American Academy of Pediatrics Council on Communications (2011). Media use by children younger
\nthan 2 years. Pediatrics, 128(5), pp. 1040-1045.
\n5 American Academy of Pediatrics Council on Communications and Media (2010). Media education. Pediatrics, 126(5), pp. 1012-1017; American Academy of
\nPediatrics Council on Communications and Media
\n(2011). Media use by children younger than 2 years.
\nPediatrics, 128(5), pp. 1040-1045; and Kirkorian, H.
\nL., Wartella, E. A., & Anderson, D. R. (2008). Media
\nand young children\u2019s learning. Future of Children,
\n18(1), pp. 39-61.
\n6 Mares, M-L, Palmer, E., & Sullivan, T. (2008). Prosocial effects of media exposure. In Calvert, S. L. & Wilson, B. J. (Eds.), The handbook of children, media, and
\ndevelopment, pp. 268-289. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
\n7 Kirkorian, H. L., Wartella, E. A., & Anderson, D.
\nR. (2008).
\n8 Bittman, M., Rutherford, L., Brown, J., &
\nUnsworth, L. (2011). Digital natives? New and old
\nmedia and children\u2019s outcomes. Australian Journal
\nOf Education, 55(2), pp. 161-175; American Academy
\nof Pediatrics Council on Communications (2009).
\nMedia violence. Pediatrics, 124, pp. 1495-1503.
\n9 Haugland S. W. & Wright J. L. (1997). Young
\nchildren and technology: A world of discovery. Boston,
\nMA: Allyn and Bacon.
\n10 American Academy of Pediatrics Council on
\nCommunications (2009). Media violence. Pediatrics
\n124, pp. 1495-1503.
\n11 M\u00f6ssle, T., Kleimann, M., Rehbein, F., & Pfeiffer,
\nC. (2010). Media use and school achievement–boys
\nat risk? British Journal of Developmental Psychology,
\n28(3), pp. 699-725.
\n12 Lillard, A. S. & Peterson, J. (2011). The immediate impact of different types of television on young
\nchildren\u2019s executive function. Pediatrics, 128(4), pp.
\n644-649.
\n13 Rideout, V. (2011). Zero to eight: Children\u2019s media use
\nin America, p. 44. San Francisco, CA: Commonsense
\nMedia; Rideout, V. J., Foehr, U. G., & Roberts, D. F.
\n(2010). Generation M2: Media in the lives of 8- to 18-yearolds, p. 2. Menlo Park, CA: Kaiser Family Foundation.
\n14 Wijga, A. H., Scholtens, S., Bemelmans, W. J.,
\nKerkhof, M., Koppelman, G. H., Brunekreef, B.,
\n& Smit, H. A. (2010). Diet, screen time, physical
\nactivity, and childhood overweight in the general
\npopulation and in high risk subgroups: Prospective analyses in the PIAMA birth cohort. Journal of
\nObesity, 2010. Retrieved March 2, 2012, from: http:\/\/
\nwww.hindawi.com\/journals\/jobes\/2010\/423296\/
\n15 Thompson, D. A. & Christakis, D. (2005). The
\nassociation between television viewing and irregular
\nsleep schedules among children less than 3 years of
\nage. Pediatrics, 116(10), pp. 851-856.
\n16 Barlett, N. D., Gentile, D. A., Barlett, C. P., Eisenmann, J. C., & Walsh, D. (2012). Sleep as a mediator
\nof screen time effects on children\u2019s health outcomes.
\nJournal of Children and Media, 6(1), pp. 37-50.
\n17 Pagani, L., Fitzpatrick, C., Barnett, T. A., &
\nDubow, E. (2010). Prospective associations between
\nearly childhood television exposure and academic,
\npsychosocial, and physical well-being by middle
\nchildhood. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent
\nMedicine, 164(5), pp. 425-431. Retrieved February
\n7, 2012, from: http:\/\/archpedi.ama-assn.org\/cgi\/
\nreprint\/164\/5\/425.pdf
\n18 Swing, E. S., Gentile, D. A., Anderson, C. A., &
\nWalsh, D.A. (2010). Television and video game exposure and the development of attention problems.
\nPediatrics, 126(8), pp. 214-221.
\n19 Pagani, L., Fitzpatrick, C., Barnett, T. A., &
\nDubow, E. (2010).
\n20 Vandewater, E. A., Bickham, D. S., & Lee, J. H.
\n(2006). Time well spent? Relating television use to
\nchildren\u2019s free-time activities. Pediatrics, 117(2), pp.
\n181-191.
\n21 Rideout, V. (2011). Further analysis of original
\ndata published by Commonsense Media was conducted on October 4, 2012, by Melissa Saphir and
\nVicky Rideout at the request of this publication.
\n22 Ibid.
\n23 Laporte, N. (2012, July 10). Where iPads have
\ntoddler-proof cases, and toy design is child\u2019s play:
\nPrototype. International Herald Tribune, p. 20.
\n24 Rideout, V. (2011), p. 18.
\n25 Tandon, P. S., Zhou, C., Lozano, P., & Christakis,
\nD. A. (2011). Preschoolers\u2019 total daily screen time at
\nhome and by type of child care. Journal of Pediatrics,
\n158(2), pp. 297-300.
\n26 The Nielsen Company (2009). TV viewing
\namong kids at an eight-year high. Retrieved July 19,
\n2010, from: http:\/\/blog.nielsen.com\/nielsenwire\/
\nmedia_entertainment\/tvviewing-among-kids-at-aneight-year-high\/
\n27 Rideout, V. J., Foehr, U. G., & Roberts, D. F.
\n(2010), p. 45.
\n28 Li, X. & Atkins, M. S. (2004). Early childhood
\ncomputer experience and cognitive and motor development. Pediatrics, 113(6), pp. 1715-1722.
\n29 See Schonkoff, J. & Phillips, D. (Eds.) (2000).
\nFrom neurons to neighborhoods: The science of early
\nchildhood development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; and Healy, J. (2004). Brain
\ndevelopment and learning from birth to adolescence
\n(3rd ed.). New York, NY: Three Rivers Press. For the
\nbenefits of time in nature, see Louv, R. (2008). Last
\nchild in the woods: Saving our children from nature
\ndeficit disorder (expanded and revised ed.). New York,
\nNY: Algonquin Press. For more information about
\nhow time in nature benefits children, the Children
\nand Nature Network has a series of monographs
\nsummarizing research on the declining time
\nchildren spend in nature, and the benefits of being
\nconnected to nature. Retrieved September 21, 2012,
\nfrom: http:\/\/www.childrenandnature.org\/documents\/C118\/
\n30 See National Scientific Council Center on the
\nDeveloping Child at Harvard University (2007). The
\nscience of early child development: Closing the gap
\nbetween what we know and what we do. Retrieved
\nAugust 30, 2007, from: www.developingchild.net
\n31 Schonkoff, J. & Phillips, D. (Eds.) (2000). From
\nneurons to neighborhoods: The science of early childhood
\ndevelopment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; and Healy, J. (2004).
\n32 See Carr, N. (2010). The shallows: What the
\ninternet is doing to our brains, p. 34. New York, NY:
\nNorton.
\n33 Certain, L. K. & Kahn, R. S. (2002). Prevalence,
\ncorrelates, and trajectory of television viewing among
\ninfants and toddlers. Pediatrics, 109(4), pp. 634-642.
\n34 Christakis, D. & Zimmerman, F. (2006). Early
\ntelevision viewing is associated with protesting
\nturning off the television at age 6. Medscape General
\nMedicine, 8(2), p. 63.
\n35 Gr\u00fcsser, S. M., Thalemann, D. R., & Griffiths,
\nM. D. (2007). Excessive computer game playing: Evidence for addiction and aggression? Cyberpsychology
\n& Behavior, 10(2), pp. 290-292; Hart, G. M., Johnson,
\nB., Stamm, B., Angers, N., Robinson, A., Lally, T., &
\nFagley, W. H. (2009). Rapid communication effects of
\nvideo games on adolescents and adults. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 12(1), pp. 63-65.
\n36 Koepp, M. J., Gunn, R. N., Lawrence, A. D.,
\nCunningham, V. J., Dagher, A., Jones, T., . . . Grasby,
\nP. M. (1998). Evidence for striatal dopamine release
\nduring a video game. Nature, 393, pp. 266-268.
\n37 Carr, N. (2010), pp. 17\u201335.
\n38 Harris Interactive (2007). Video game addiction:
\nIs it real? Retrieved October 1, 2010, from: http:\/\/
\nwww.harrisinteractive.com\/NEWS\/allnewsbydate.
\nasp?NewsID=1196
\nEndnotes
\nFacing the Screen Dilemma: Y o u n g C h i l d r e n , T ech n o l o g y a n d E a r ly E d u cat i o n 2 1
\n39 Vandewater, E. A., Bickham, D. S., & Lee, J. H.
\n(2006). Time well spent? Relating television use to
\nchildren\u2019s free-time activities. Pediatrics, 117(2), pp.
\n181-191.
\n40 See Vibbert, M. M. & Meringof, F. L. K. (1981).
\nChildren\u2019s production and application of story imagery:
\nA cross-medium investigation (Tech.Rep. No. 23).
\nCambridge, MA: Harvard University, Project Zero.
\nSee also Valkenberg, P. M. (2001). Television and the
\nchild\u2019s developing imagination. In D. G. Singer & J.
\nL. Singer (Eds.), Handbook of children and the media,
\npp. 121-134. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
\n41 Vandewater, E. A., Bickham, D. S., & Lee, J. H.
\n(2006).
\n42 Mendelsohn, A. L., Berkule, S. B., Tomopoulos,
\nS., Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., Huberman, H. S., Alvir,
\nJ., & Dreyer, B. P. (2008). Infant television and video
\nexposure associated with limited parent-child verbal
\ninteractions in low socioeconomic status households. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine,
\n162(5), pp. 411-417.
\n43 Kirkorian, H. L., Pempek, T. A., Murphy, L.
\nA., Schmidt, M. E., & Anderson, D. R. (2009). The
\nimpact of background television on parent-child
\ninteraction. Child Development, 80(5), pp. 1350-1359.
\n44 Parish-Morris, J., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Golinkoff, R.
\nM., & Maller, B. (2008). Electronic console books:
\nIndependent effects on dialogic language in parents
\nand children. Boston University Conference on Language Development, p. 10.
\n45 De Jong, M. T. & Bus, A. G. (2002). Quality
\nof book-reading matters for emergent readers: An experiment with the same book in regular or electronic
\nformat. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(1), pp.
\n145-155.
\n46 For a highly readable and thorough overview of
\nthe research on the impact of new technologies on
\ndeep thinking and other aspects of brain development see Carr, Nicholas. The shallows: What the
\ninternet is doing to our brains (2010). New York, NY:
\nW. W. Norton & Company.
\n47 Robb, M. B., Richer, R. A., & Wartella, E. A.
\n(2009). Just a talking book? Word learning from
\nwatching baby videos. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 27(1), pp. 27-45; Krcmar, D., Grela, B.,
\n& Lin, K. (2007). Can toddlers learn vocabulary from
\ntelevision? An experimental approach. Media Psychology, 10(1), pp. 41-63; and Kuhl, P. K., Tsao, F. M., &
\nLiu, H. M. (2003). Foreign-language experience in
\ninfancy: Effects of short-term exposure and social
\ninteraction on phonetic learning. Proceedings of the
\nNational Academy of Sciences, 100, pp. 9096\u20139101.
\n48 Chonchaiya, W. & Pruksananonda, C. (2008).
\nTelevision viewing associates with delayed language
\ndevelopment. Acta Paediatrica, 97(7), pp. 977-982.
\n49 Smilansky, S. (1990). In E. Klugman, & S. Smilansky (Eds.), Children\u2019s play and learning: Perspectives
\nand policy implications, p. 35. New York, NY: Teachers
\nCollege Press.
\n50 Pagani, L., Fitzpatrick, C., Barnett, T. A., &
\nDubow, E. (2010). Prospective associations between
\nearly childhood television exposure and academic,
\npsychosocial, and physical well-being by middle
\nchildhood. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent
\nMedicine, 164(5), pp. 425-431. Retrieved February
\n7, 2012, from: http:\/\/archpedi.ama-assn.org\/cgi\/
\nreprint\/164\/5\/425.pdf
\n51 Page, A. S., Cooper, A. R., Griew, P., & Jago, R.
\n(2010). Children\u2019s screen viewing is related to psychological difficulties irrespective of physical activity.
\nPediatrics, 126(5), pp. 1011-1017.
\n52 Swing, E. S., Gentile, D. A., Anderson, C. A.,
\n& Walsh, D. A. (2010). Television and video game
\nexposure and the development of attention problems. Pediatrics, 126(8), pp. 214-221; Landhuis C. E.,
\nPoulton R., & Welch D., & Hancox, R. J. (2007). Does
\nchildhood television viewing lead to attention problems in adolescence? Pediatrics, 120, pp. 532\u2013537.
\n53 Johnson, J., Brook, J., Cohen, P., & Kasen, S.
\n(2007). Extensive television viewing and the development of attention and learning difficulties during
\nadolescence. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent
\nMedicine, 161(5), pp. 480-486. Retrieved October
\n2, 2012, from: http:\/\/archpedi.ama-assn.org\/cgi\/
\nreprint\/161\/5\/480.pdf
\n54 Roy, P., Nass, C., Meheula, L., Rance, M., Kumar,
\nA., Bamford, H., . . . Zhou, M. (2012). Media use,
\nface-to-face communication, media multitasking,
\nand social well-being among 8- to 12-year-old girls.
\nDevelopmental Psychology, 48(2), pp. 327-336.
\n55 Wijga, A. H., Scholtens, S., Bemelmans, W. J.,
\nKerkhof, M., Koppelman, G. H., Brunekreef, B., &
\nSmit, H. A. (2010).
\n56 Landhuis, E. C., Poulton, R., Welch, D., & Hancox, R. J. (2008). Programming obesity and poor fitness: The long-term impact of childhood television.
\nObesity, 16(6), pp. 1457-1459.
\n57 Jago, R., Baranowski, T., Baranowski, J. C.,
\nThompson, D., & Greaves, K. A. (2005). BMI from
\n3-6 years of age is predicted by TV viewing and
\nphysical activity, not diet. International Journal of
\nObesity, 29(6), pp. 557-564.
\n58 Harrison, K., Liechty, J., & The Strong Kids Program (2011). U.S. preschoolers\u2019 media exposure and
\ndietary habits: The primacy of television and time
\nlimits of parental mediation. Journal of Children and
\nMedia, 6(1), pp. 18-36.
\n59 Tavaras, E. M., Sandora, T. J., Shih, M. C., RossDegnan, D., Goldmann, D. A., & Gillman, M. W.
\n(2006). The association of television and video viewing with fast food intake by preschool-age children.
\nObesity, 14, pp. 2034\u20132041.
\n60 Weicha, J. L., Peterson, K. E., Ludwig, D. S.,
\nKim, J., Sobol, A., & Gortmaker, S. L. (2006). When
\nchildren eat what they watch: Impact of television viewing on dietary intake in youth. Archives of
\nPediatric and Adolescent Medicine, 160(4), pp. 436-442.
\nRetrieved February 7, 2012, from: http:\/\/archpedi.
\nama-assn.org\/cgi\/reprint\/160\/4\/436
\n61 Chaput, J. P., Visby, T., Nyby, S., Klingenberg, L.,
\nGregersen, N. T., Tremblay, A., . . . Sj\u00f6din, A. (2011).
\nVideo game playing increases food intake in adolescents: A randomized crossover study. American
\nJournal of Clinical Nutrition, 93(6), pp. 1196-1203;
\nTremblay, M. S. & Willms, J. D. (2003). Is the Canadian childhood obesity epidemic related to physical
\ninactivity? International Journal of Obesity-Related
\nMetabolic Disorders, 27(9), pp. 1100-1105.
\n62 Baranowski, T., Abdelsamad, D., Baranowski,
\nJ., O\u2019Connor, T. M., Thompson, D., Barnett, A., . . .
\nChen, T. (2012). Impact of an active video game on
\nhealthy children\u2019s physical activity. Pediatrics, 129(3).
\nRetrieved February 7, 2012, from: http:\/\/pediatrics.
\naappublications.org\/content\/early\/2012\/02\/22\/
\npeds.2011-2050.full.pdf+html
\n63 Thompson, D. A. & Christakis, D. (2005). The
\nassociation between television viewing and irregular
\nsleep schedules among children less than 3 years of
\nage. Pediatrics, 116(10), pp. 851-856.
\n64 Garrison, M. M., Liekweg, K., & Christakis, D.
\nA. (2011). Media use and child sleep: The impact of
\ncontent, timing, and environment. Pediatrics, 128(1),
\npp. 29-35.
\n65 Barlett, N. D., Gentile, D. A., Barlett, C. P., Eisenmann, J. C., & Walsh, D. (2012).
\n66 Dworak, M., Schierl, T., Bruns, T., & Str\u00fcder, H.
\nK. (2007). Impact of singular excessive computer
\ngame and television exposure on sleep patterns
\nand memory performance of school-aged children.
\nPediatrics, 120(5), pp. 978-85.
\n67 Schor, J. (2004). Born to buy, p. 21. New York:
\nScribner.
\n68 James McNeil quoted in Horovitz, B. (2006,
\nNovember 22). Six strategies marketers use to make
\nkids want things bad. USA Today, p. 1B. Retrieved
\nMarch 2, 2008, from: http:\/\/www.usatoday.com\/
\nmoney\/advertising\/2006-11-21-toy-strategies-usat_x.
\nhtm
\n69 Institute of Medicine of the National Academies
\n(2006). Food marketing to children and youth: Threat
\nor opportunity?, p. 2. Washington, DC: The National
\nAcademies Press.
\n70 Hargreaves, D. & Tiggemann, M. (2002). The
\neffect of television commercials on mood and body
\ndissatisfaction: The role of appearance-schema
\nactivation. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology,
\n21(3), pp. 287-308.
\n2 2 Facing the Screen Dilemma: Y o u n g C h i l d r e n , T ech n o l o g y a n d E a r ly E d u cat i o n
\n71 Becker, A. E., Burwell, R. A., Herzog, P. H., &
\nGilman, S. E. (2002). Eating behaviors and attitudes
\nfollowing prolonged exposure to television among
\nethnic Fijian adolescent girls. British Journal of
\nPsychiatry, 180, pp. 509-514.
\n72 American Psychological Association, Task Force
\non the Sexualization of Girls (2007). Report of the
\nHelp write my thesis – APA Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls, p. 3.
\nWashington, DC: American Psychological Association. Retrieved March 25, 2008, from: www.apa.org\/
\npi\/wpo\/sexualization.html
\n73 American Academy of Pediatrics (2000, July
\n26). Joint statement on the impact of entertainment
\nviolence on children. Congressional Public Health
\nSummit. Retrieved February 9, 2008, from: http:\/\/
\nwww.aap.org\/advocacy\/releases\/jstmtevc.htm
\n74 Buijzen, M. & Valkenburg, P. M. (2003). The
\neffects of television advertising on materialism,
\nparent\u2013child conflict, and unhappiness: A review of
\nresearch. Applied Developmental Psychology, 24(4), pp.
\n437\u2013456.
\n75 Federal Trade Commission (1999). Self-regulation
\nin the alcohol industry: A review of industry efforts to
\navoid promoting alcohol to underage consumers, p. 4.
\nWashington, DC: Federal Trade Commission.
\n76 National Cancer Institute (2001, November).
\nChanging adolescent smoking prevalence. Smoking
\nand Tobacco Control Monograph, No.14, NIH Pub. #
\n02-5086.
\n77 Greenfield, P. M., Yut, M., Chung, M., Land, D.,
\nKreider, H., Pantoja, M., & Horsely, K. (1993). The
\nprogram-length commercial. In G. Berry & J. Keiko
\n(Eds.), Children and television: Images in a changing sociocultural world, pp. 53-72. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
\n78 See Vibbert, M. M. & Meringof, F. L. K. (1981).
\nChildren\u2019s production and application of story imagery:
\nA cross-medium investigation (Tech.Rep. No. 23).
\nCambridge, MA: Harvard University, Project Zero.
\nSee also Valkenberg, P. M. (2001). Television and the
\nchild\u2019s developing imagination. In D. G. Singer & J.
\nL. Singer (Eds.), Handbook of children and the media,
\npp. 121-134. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
\n79 The Fred Rogers Center for Media and Early
\nLearning & the National Association for the Education of Young Children (2012). Technology and interactive media as tools in early childhood programs serving
\nchildren from birth through age 8, p. 4. Retrieved
\nOctober 2, 2012, from: http:\/\/www.naeyc.org\/files\/
\nnaeyc\/file\/positions\/PS_technology_WEB2.pdf
\n80 See Hart, B. & Risley, T. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American
\nchildren. New York: Paul H. Brookes Publishing.
\n81 Neuman, S. & Celano, D. (2001). Access to print
\nin low-income and middle-income communities:
\nAn ecological study of four neighborhoods. Reading
\nResearch Quarterly, 36(1), pp. 8-26.
\n82 The technology gap (1967). Time, 89(2), p. 20.
\n83 U.S. Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications and Information Administration
\n(NTIA) (1995). Falling through the net: A survey
\nof the \u201chave nots\u201d in rural and urban America. Retrieved October 2, 2012, from: http:\/\/www.ntia.doc.
\ngov\/ntiahome\/fallingthru.html
\n84 Zucker, K. & Smith, A. (2012). Digital differences.
\nPew Charitable Trust: Pew Internet and American
\nLife Project. Retrieved September 25, 2012, from:
\nhttp:\/\/pewinternet.org\/Reports\/2012\/Digital-differences\/Main-Report\/Internet-adoption-over-time.aspx
\n85 Rideout, V. (2011), p. 26.
\n86 Ibid, p. 20.
\n87 Ibid; Children from families earning less than
\n$30,000 annually spend an average of 25 minutes a
\nday playing games on digital devices and 5 minutes a
\nday in other computer activities including homework
\nor educational activities. Children from families
\nearning more than $75,000 annually spend 26 minutes a day with games and 5 minutes a day in other
\ncomputer activities. Children from families earning
\nbetween $30,000 and $70,000 spend 22 minutes a
\nday playing digital games and 8 minutes in other
\ncomputer activities.
\n88 For review of relevant research see Almon, J.
\n& Miller, E. (2011). The crisis in early education: A
\nresearch-based case for more play and less pressure.
\nCollege Park, MD: Alliance for Childhood; and
\nMiller, E. & Almon, J. (2009). Crisis in the kindergarten: Why children need to play in school. College Park,
\nMD: Alliance for Childhood. Retrieved September
\n15, 2012, from: www.allianceforchildhood.org\/
\npublications
\n89 Author\u2019s conversations with educators and occupational therapists; and Tyre, P. (2010, February
\n24). Watch how you hold that crayon. The New York
\nTimes. Retrieved September 15, 2012, from: http:\/\/
\nwww.nytimes.com\/2010\/02\/25\/fashion\/25Therapy.
\nhtml?pagewanted=all
\n90 Ibid, Tyre, P.
\n91 Brown, S. & Vaughan, C. (2009). Play: How it
\nshapes the brain, opens the imagination, and invigorates
\nthe soul, pp. 9-11. New York, NY: Avery-Penguin.
\n92 Britannica Editors (2010, October 18). The
\ndecline of creativity in the United States: 5 questions
\nfor educational psychologist Kyung Hee Kim. Encyclopedia Britannica Blog. Retrieved October 6, 2012,
\nfrom: http:\/\/www.britannica.com\/blogs\/2010\/10\/
\nthe-decline-of-creativity-in-the-united-states-5-questions-for-educational-psychologist-kyung-hee-kim\/
\n93 Baley, M. (2011, February 7). Is creativity the
\nnumber 1 skill for the 21st century? Psychology
\nToday. Retrieved September 17, 2012, from: http:\/\/
\nwww.psychologytoday.com\/blog\/working-creativity\/201102\/is-creativity-the-number-1-skill-the-21stcentury
\n94 The PISA exam (Programme for International
\nStudent Assessment) is given to about 175,000
\n15-year-olds from the world\u2019s wealthiest countries.
\nRetrieved September 15, 2012, from: http:\/\/www.
\noecd.org\/pisa\/
\n95 Ripley, A. (2010, October 20). Brilliance in a
\nbox: What do the best classrooms in the world look
\nlike? Slate. Retrieved September 15, 2012, from:
\nhttp:\/\/www.slate.com\/articles\/news_and_politics\/
\nthe_hive\/2010\/10\/brilliance_in_a_box.html
\n96 Alliance for Childhood (2004). Tech tonic: Towards
\na new literacy of technology, pp. 71-84. College Park,
\nMD: Alliance for Childhood. Retrieved September
\n28, 2012, from: http:\/\/www.allianceforchildhood.org\/
\nsites\/allianceforchildhood.org\/files\/file\/pdf\/projects\/
\ncomputers\/pdf_files\/tech_tonic.pdf. Provides guidelines and principles for developing a deeper technology literacy, from using the simplest technologies in
\nearly childhood to the most advanced in high school
\nand college.
\n97 Guernsey, L. (2012, May 2). Can your preschooler
\nlearn anything from an iPad app? Slate. Retrieved
\nSeptember 23, 2012, from: http:\/\/www.slate.com\/
\narticles\/technology\/future_tense\/2012\/05\/interactive_screen_time_for_kids_do_educational_ipad_
\napps_teach_toddlers_anything_.html
\n98 Goodwin, K. & Highfield, K. (2012). iTeach and
\niLearn\u2014An examination of \u2018educational\u2019 apps. (Conference report of study of top 10 selling apps in each
\nof three countries\u2014the United States, the United
\nKingdom, and Australia). Early Education and
\nTechnology for Children Conference, 2012. Retrieved
\nSeptember 23, 2012, from: http:\/\/www.eetcconference.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/Examination_of_educational_apps.pdf
\n99 From Caring for our children: National health and
\nsafety performance standards; Guidelines for early care
\nand education programs (3rd ed.).
\nFacing the Screen Dilemma: Y o u n g C h i l d r e n , T ech n o l o g y a n d E a r ly E d u cat i o n 2 3
\nSuggested Reading
\nAlliance for Childhood. Fool\u2019s Gold: A Critical Look at Computers in Childhood, Second Printing (2001,
\nJuly). Edited by Colleen Cordes and Edward Miller. College Park, MD: Alliance for Childhood.
\nCarlsson-Paige, Nancy. Taking Back Childhood: A Proven Roadmap for Raising Confident, Creative, Compassionate Kids (2008). New York, NY: Hudson Street Press.
\nCarr, Nicholas. The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains (2010). New York, NY: W. W.
\nNorton & Company.
\nCordes, Colleen and Edward Miller. Tech Tonic: Towards a New Literacy of Technology (2004). College
\nPark, MD: Alliance for Childhood.
\nGiroux, Henry and Grace Pollock. The Mouse that Roared: Disney and the End of Innocence (Updated
\nand Expanded Edition) (2010). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
\nHealy, Jane. Your Child\u2019s Growing Mind: Brain Development and Learning From Birth to Adolescence
\n(2004). New York, NY: Broadway Books.
\nHealy, Jane. Failure to Connect: How Computers Affect our Children\u2019s Minds \u2013 and What We Can Do
\nAbout It (1999). New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
\nLevin, Diane and Nancy Carlsson-Paige. The War Play Dilemma: What Every Parent and Teacher Needs
\nto Know (2nd Edition) (2006). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
\nLevin, Diane and Jean Kilbourne. So Sexy So Soon: The New Sexualized Childhood and What Parents
\nCan Do to Protect Their Kids (2008). New York: Ballantine Books.
\nLevin, Diane. Beyond Remote-Controlled Childhood: Teaching Young Children in the Media Age
\n(In press). Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.
\nLinn, Susan. Consuming Kids: The Hostile Takeover of Childhood (2004). New York, NY: The New Press.
\nLinn, Susan. The Case for Make Believe: Saving Play in a Commercialized World (2008). New York, NY:
\nThe New Press.
\nMiller, Edward and Joan Almon. Crisis in the Kindergarten: Why Children Need to Play in School (2009).
\nCollege Park, MD: Alliance for Childhood.
\nOppenheimer, Todd. The Flickering Mind: Saving Education from the False Promise of Technology (2004).
\nNew York, NY: Random House.
\nOrenstein, Peggy. Cinderella Ate My Daughter: Dispatches from the Front Lines of the New Girlie-Girl
\nCulture (2012). New York, NY: Harper.
\nSkenazy, Lenore. Free-Range Kids, How to Raise Safe, Self-Reliant Children (Without Going Nuts with
\nWorry) (2010). Hoboken, NJ: Jossey-Bass.
\nTobin, Joseph Jay. Good Guys Don\u2019t Wear Hats: Children\u2019s Talk About the Media (2000). New York, NY:
\nTeachers College Press.
\nTurkle, Sherry. Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other (2012).
\nNew York, NY: Basic Books.
\nVan Evra, Judith. Television and Child Development (2004). London: Routledge.
\n2 4 Facing the Screen Dilemma: Y o u n g C h i l d r e n , T ech n o l o g y a n d E a r ly E d u cat i o n
\nAbout the Authors
\nSusan Linn, EdD, is founder and director of Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood,
\nresearch associate at Boston Children\u2019s Hospital, and instructor in psychiatry at Harvard
\nMedical School. She has written two books and numerous articles about creative play and
\nthe effects of media and commercial marketing on children. A psychologist and an awardwinning ventriloquist, she and her puppets appeared on Mister Rogers Neighborhood and
\nin numerous videos helping children cope with difficult issues ranging from racism to parental depression. In 2006 she received a Presidential Citation from the American Psychological Association for her work on behalf of children.
\nJoan Wolfsheimer Almon co-founded the Alliance for Childhood in 1999 and served as its
\ndirector until 2012 when she became director of programs. She oversees the Alliance\u2019s campaigns to restore play in childhood, play-based learning in preschool and kindergarten, and
\nthe overuse of screen time in childhood. Joan began working with young children in 1971
\nand became a Waldorf early childhood educator. She taught in Maryland for nearly 20 years
\nand then traveled extensively as a consultant to schools in Africa, Asia, South America, and
\nEurope. She enjoys telling fairy tales to children and enlivening them through marionette
\nshows.<\/p>\n
Diane E. Levin, PhD, is professor of early childhood education at Wheelock College in
\nBoston. Her teaching, writing, and advocacy focus on how various forces in society\u2014such
\nas war and conflict, economic crises, media, marketing and toys\u2014affect children\u2019s development, learning, behavior and play; and, what parents, teachers and the wider community
\ncan do to counteract the harm and promote the positive. She has written or co-written eight
\nbooks. Formerly, Diane taught kindergarten and emotionally disturbed preschoolers. She is
\na founder of Teachers Resisting Unhealthy Children\u2019s Entertainment (www.truceteachers.
\norg), Defending the Early Years (www.deyproject.org) and the Campaign for a CommercialFree Childhood.
\nThe Campaign for a
\nCommercial-Free Childhood
\nsupports parents\u2019 efforts to raise
\nhealthy families by ending the
\nexploitive practice of marketing to
\nchildren. We hold corporations
\naccountable for egregious marketing
\npractices, promote policies that limit
\nadvertisers\u2019 access to children, and
\nadvocate for commercial-free schools.
\nCCFC is also home to National
\nScreen-Free Week.
\nwww.commercialfreechildhood.org
\nThe Alliance for Childhood
\npromotes policies and practices
\nthat support children\u2019s healthy
\ndevelopment, love of learning,
\nand joy in living. Current
\ncampaigns include the
\nrestoration of play in children\u2019s
\nlives and of experiential, playbased learning in preschools
\nand kindergartens; and the
\ndevelopment of the Decade for
\nChildhood: 2012\u20132022.
\nwww.allianceforchildhood.org
\nTeachers Resisting
\nUnhealthy Children\u2019s
\nEntertainment
\nis a grassroots organization
\nthat prepares action guides
\nto help teachers and parents
\ndeal with the harmful impact
\nof media and commercial
\nculture on young children\u2019s
\nplay, behavior and school
\nsuccess.
\nwww.truceteachers.org
\nYoung Children, Technology
\nand Early Education
\nFacing
\nthe Screen Dilemma:
\nSmart boards. Smartphones. Tablets. E-books, and more. The rapid influx of new
\nscreen devices poses a special challenge for the early childhood community. How do
\nwe best support children\u2019s growth, development, and learning in a world radically
\nchanged by technology?
\nFacing the Screen Dilemma is designed to help early childhood educators make
\ninformed decisions about whether, why, how, and when to use screen technologies
\nwith young children. It provides an overview of the research on screen time and young
\nchildren. And it offers guidance for those who want their programs to be screen-free,
\nas well as for those who choose to incorporate technology in their settings.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Young Children, Technology and Early Education Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood \u2022 Alliance for Childhood \u2022 Teachers Resisting Unhealthy Children\u2019s Entertainment Facing the Screen Dilemma: Facing the Screen Dilemma: Young children, technology and early education \u00a9 2012 The Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood and the Alliance for Childhood All rights reserved. First printing, October 2012 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2230,2229,2225,2226,2223,2213,2224,2228,2072,2227],"tags":[2217,2204,2218,382,2215,2205,2216,2202,2203,2219],"class_list":["post-9198","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-australia-early-childhood-education-assessment-help","category-early-childhood-education-assessment-assignment-help-australia","category-early-childhood-education-education-academic-writing-assistance","category-education-dissertation-writing-service","category-education-essay-assignment-help-uk","category-education-homework-help-answers","category-education-teaching-essay-assignment-writing-help-uk","category-homework-help-with-my-education-assignments","category-professional-psychology-and-education-essay-paper-writers","category-write-my-education-thesis","tag-academic-writing-help","tag-assignment-help-education","tag-custom-education-essays","tag-dissertation-assistance","tag-homework-support-teaching","tag-learning-homework-help","tag-professional-essay-writers","tag-research-paper-service","tag-school-education-essay-writers","tag-teaching-assignment-assistance"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/essays\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9198","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/essays\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/essays\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/essays\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/essays\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=9198"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/essays\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9198\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/essays\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9198"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/essays\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9198"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/essays\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9198"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}