Consider for a moment these recently occurring episodes in a number of K12 schools:
A Massachusetts educator notes that when their entire school community was surveyed last spring, the top concern of parents, teachers, and students related to technology use was screen time. “Many of these concerns are based on warnings from experts we trust,” she worried, referring to trusted pediatricians, optometrists, and psychologists.
At a prestigious private school, school leaders are making plans for their next investments in technology. An experienced consultant is brought in to evaluate their thinking and goals. The leaders are seeking a “second opinion.” During the discussion, the head of school asks about “screen-time concerns.” The deeply experienced leader has been getting an earful from parents, faculty, and technology detractors about the “screen-time” topic, and he is just being cautious. He asks the consultant if this problem is real and how it should be managed.
Parents are worried in a high-performing elementary school. They’ve heard so much about the potential dangers of too much screen-time for children at home, and now they hear the school is readying a chromebook initiative to roll out in the school next fall. They are worried about too much screen-time during the school day, so they repeatedly raise these concerns with the school principal at school events. The principal responds by suggesting that screen time must be limited to two hours per day for upper grades, and less than an hour for the primary grades.
In a fierce online debate occurring on a national discussion board, a technology-enthused educator derides the notion of minimizing student screen time: “It’s the 21st Century, and we just need to recognize that and move in. This is how the next generation of children learns!”
The above scenarios are all true cases, of course. But for firms operating in the display/content development/integration space, these four scenarios all echo a unique challenge now raising its head in educational circles, one that could likely affect your sales in the education market, if you’re not careful. It’s about the screen—the display. But the argument is not about HD, UHD, 3D, VR, LED, LCD, or pixel quality. No, it centers question about “how much screen time is too much?” Welcome to the rapidly crescendoing screen-time debate in education.
The screen-time debate dissected
In the less-screen-time-is-desirable camp, there are three distinct phalanxes of disapproval:
- The overstimulation hypothesis and other ills. This group, supported by the medical community, and pediatricians in specific, is worried about obesity, physical , sleep loss, and other science-informed ills that accompany overmuch screen time. One line of thinking suggests that inordinate amounts of screen time lead to inattention later in life—the overstimulation hypothesis. See this video for an insightful TED talk on this topic. Frankly, this scares parents. Of course, the news that the American Academy of Pediatrics is readying a release of new recommendations for screen time for children–taking into account recent technological shifts such as the tablet revolution–has raised eyebrows everywhere. (See this preview.)
- The computer vision syndrome. The vision health community, consisting of optometrists, ophthalmologists, and vision therapists, focuses on the effects of excessive screen time on the child’s eyes and vision, both critical to the learning process. You can learn more about these concerns at the American Optometric Association’s web site.
- The social/educational deficit hypothesis. Educational psychologists and a few classroom educators focus their own angst on issues of social isolation, digital media overuse, mental health morbidities, or perceived issues of educational hollowness that may arise from excessive screen time. Common Sense’s new Census on Student Media Use has alarmed many parents and educators in finding that teens use an average of nine hours of entertainment media per day.
On the other side of the debate, in the screen-time-is-not-a-problem camp, there are many champions for continued screen time in the classroom. A sampling of their opinions include:
“We need to realize that our students are the so called “Digital natives” and for them using technologies in different ways seem to be so natural.
“A definitive number of screen time hours set for a school is not practical in the 21st century.”
“I find that existing reports do not differentiate enough between passive and active screen time.”
“Little League can be more harmful than Mario. It’s all in how engaged their mind can be, both with the task at hand, and with the people around them.”
“I am no expert. Nor do I have great faith in scientific studies, which seem to last only long enough to be contradicted by another study. At the same time, I do have great faith in the adaptability of the humans. In short, I think children could adapt to a more vigorous new digital environment.”
Then of course there are the many parents who decry screen time out of one side of their mouth, while overusing displays as babysitters when their own children require quick calming or diversion. And of course, we shouldn’t fail to mention the folks of all stripes who are trying to strike a delicate balance between opposing sides of this debate, or attempting to redirect the debate in terms of “smarter screen time.” (For details, see my recent article on the screen-time debate at the upcoming SXSW conference.)
How should the display industry address the screen-time debate? Should it be ignored, hoping it will go away? Should the industry fund countervailing research? And how can one truly win an argument against science-based evidence and the experts in medicine, neuroscience, or psychology, especially the “experts we trust”? With clear thinking, messaging, and marketing, this new challenge is surmountable. In a future article, I will address these questions. For now, I’ll sign off. I’ve been sitting at this display much too long. –Len Scrogan
