Go to the Globe and Mail homepage

Jump to main navigationJump to main content

One way to look at screen time is like a diet, says one expert: It’s not just how many calories are taken in, it’s whether those calories have any ‘nutritional’ value. (Sheila Boardman/The Canadian Press Images)
One way to look at screen time is like a diet, says one expert: It’s not just how many calories are taken in, it’s whether those calories have any ‘nutritional’ value. (Sheila Boardman/The Canadian Press Images)

back To school

The murky distinction between educational and ‘mindless’ screen time Add to ...

It’s hard to believe that iPads have only been on the market since April, 2010. In three years, the all-in-one device has become an electronic Zelig, inserting itself seamlessly into the daily scene as though it’s always been there: it’s now often the newspaper on the breakfast table, the TV in the bedroom and the cash register at the coffee shop.

For parents, the iPad revolution puts a new spin on an old dilemma: How much screen time is appropriate for school-age children? When it comes to infants and toddlers, the message is at least unambiguous, even when it goes unheeded. Both the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Canadian Paediatric Society essentially discourage all “screen-based activities.” The rationale is that newly developing brains need to interact with real people, not machines.

For children in school, the recommendation is two hours or less of “recreational” screen time a day – an increasingly murky distinction. At what point does playing an engaging game on an iPad in spare time become qualitatively different from using an iPad in the classroom as part of a game-based learning activity? How different is an iPad experience, health-wise, from a TV or an Xbox experience?

The challenge for researchers is that iPads have not been around long enough to allow for meaningful studies of their impact on children. The screen time recommendations experts apply today are based on studies of children and television – an entirely passive and single-purpose device – that have also been applied to television plus video games.

Although researchers are trying to catch up, there is still very little in the way of hard data that can tell us what it means to have children growing up in a world where screens are as versatile and portable as our iDevices have now become.

In the absence of stacks of published research, then, The Globe and Mail has assembled a panel of experts to speak to their views – as scientists and as parents – about kids and screens.

DMITRI KRISTAKIS, Professor of Pediatrics at the School of Public Health, University of Washington and Seattle Children’s Hospital, author of The Elephant in the Living Room, Making Television Work for Your Kids.

Content and context matters:

Not all screen time is the same – and I think that’s one of the big challenges parents face. We know from decades of media research that what children watch is as important as how much they watch, and, frankly, how they watch is important as well. You can take an iPad and make it nothing more than a television, a screen like any other screen. But if you use it with as some kind of interactive educational device it’s dramatically different from a television in many structural ways that we’re still trying to understand.

A useful analogy is diet. We can think about a child’s total amount of screen time as we think about total calories, but then we have to consider what makes up those calories, about health and diversity, like a balanced diet. Two hours of watching a violent movie is very different from two hours of playing an educational game or two hours of texting with friends, even though that can now all be done on the same device.

But even at its best, one can have too much of a good thing because the screen time displaces other activities. I hear from a lot of parents who feel their children will be left behind if they’re not using these devices. I think that’s an overblown fear. Children are remarkably adaptive and very intuitive when it comes to media technology. There’s no empirical reason to believe that if your young child isn’t exposed to enough of it that he or she will somehow have a deficit.

Personal bottom line:

I am a parent, and at home we do have our own rules – I think it’s incumbent on parents to come up with their own rules. I also happen to think the Academy’s recommended limit of 2 hours a day is excessive and it’s not my personal recommendation. At home, we don’t allow any recreational screen time during the week. By that, I mean mindless screen time – obviously how you define “mindless” is very subjective. For example, my son, who is now 15, composes electronic music on his computer. I don’t consider that to be mindless recreation. We also don’t include texting as part of screen time because, for better or worse, texting has essentially become the primary mode by which school-age children talk to each other today. We count that as “phone time,” if you will.

Single page

Follow on Twitter: @ivansemeniuk

 

In the know

Most popular video »

Highlights

More from The Globe and Mail

Most Popular Stories