海角大神

Increasingly, digital media are just part of the rhythm of everyday US family life, a significant new study of parents of young children indicates. The study, 鈥�,鈥� conducted by Northwestern University鈥檚 Center on Media & Human Development, surveyed a nationally representative sample of more than 2,300 parents of children 8 and under about how media 鈥� both 鈥渢raditional鈥� and digital 鈥� inform and fit into their everyday lives and parenting. The authors found that 鈥�78% report that their children鈥檚 media use is not a source of family conflict, and 59% said they aren鈥檛 concerned their kids will become addicted to new media,鈥� according to聽.听

What鈥檚 most on parents鈥� minds (Source: the 鈥淧arenting in the Age of Digital Technology鈥� report).

What does concern those parents is the impact of lots of screen time on kids鈥� health 鈥� 鈥渢he negative impact screen time has on kids鈥� physical activity levels. More than 60% said video games result in less movement by their children, with similar proportions saying the same about TV, computers and mobile devices,鈥� US News reports. The authors themselves wrote that parents 鈥渁re more likely to find a positive than negative effect of media and technology on many of their children鈥檚 academic skills.鈥�

Family media use very individual

But it鈥檚 so individual from family to family, both the report and author, professor and tech parenting expert Lynn Schofield Clark indicate. Dr. Clark, who attended the release event in Washington, had an important take-away: 鈥淲e don鈥檛 all experience media in the same way.鈥� For some families in some neighborhoods, for example, staying inside playing video games might be safer than playing outside.

In her post about the report in聽, she points to what I think of as an ideal approach to parenting where media鈥檚 concerned: 鈥渁n ethic of respectful connectedness,鈥� Clark calls it. 鈥淭o the extent that media can help parents and family members to stay connected and to remain respectful of who they are and where they鈥檝e come from, media can be seen as useful and helpful in relation to family goals.鈥�

Less is better? It depends

So far in the digital age, our society tends to believe less media is better, but 鈥渘ot all parents can engage in the kind of concerted cultivation activities hat tend to make media use lighter,鈥� Clark writes. Families 鈥渕ay face economic, health, language, or job- or transportation-related challenges鈥�. 鈥楬elicopter parenting鈥� and concerted cultivation are rooted in the idea that young people can achieve and improve their lives through participation in existing societal structures, whether that鈥檚 school, sports or the arts. But while families facing greater economic challenges聽hope聽that these things will help, they don鈥檛聽trust聽that they will [emphases hers]. They look to their families, neighborhoods, friends and communities to help their children develop the resilience they will need to face the challenges of racism, prejudice, and structural inequalities.鈥�

Clark cites the view of Prof. Vikki Katz at Rutgers University, 鈥渨ho has studied Latino immigrant parents and their children鈥� and said at the conference that 鈥渋t鈥檚 important not to pathologize families who have economic struggles. They have the same goals as the rest of us when it comes to wanting the best for their children and in their hopes for the 鈥楢merican dream,鈥� and those of us working in areas of policy, research, and industry need to seek to provide support for them on their own terms.鈥�

Some other interesting findings

• Tablets not babysitters: I鈥檝e often heard it said that, when parents are busy, they just hand kids a smartphone or tablet. Not true. This study shows that they鈥檙e 鈥渕ore apt to turn to toys or activities (88%), books (79%) or TV (78%). Of parents with smartphones or iPads, only 37% reported being somewhat or very likely to turn to those devices.鈥�
• Early media independence: Lots of parents use media with young children, the authors report, 鈥渂ut this 鈥榡oint media engagement鈥� drops off markedly for children who are six or older.鈥�
• Parenting no easier. These parents use digital devices a whole lot, but most (70%) 鈥渄on鈥檛 think they鈥檝e made parenting any easier.鈥�
• Socio-economic differences: Families with incomes of $25,000 or less are more likely than families with incomes of $100,000 or more 鈥渢o turn to TV for educational purposes鈥� 鈥� 54% vs. 31%, respectively. It may have something to do with language, I think, that the researchers found that 鈥渓ower income parents are also more likely to think TV has a 鈥榲ery鈥� positive effect on children鈥檚 reading (23%, compared to 4% among the higher-income group) as well as their math and speaking skills.鈥� The authors add that 鈥渟imilar differences are found in parents鈥� views about the positives and negatives of computers as well,鈥� which makes me wonder if 鈥渃omputers鈥� means the Internet.
• Media time management. Professor Clark recommends that, instead of asking how much screen time is too much, parents might 鈥渢hink about teaching time management鈥� so they can learn develop their own self-regulatory skills. And Prof. Barbara Fiese at University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, encourages 鈥渉ealthy habits in the whole 鈥榝amily ecology鈥欌�� of which media is just one part, Clark reports.

The Northwestern researchers divvied the various kinds of media environments that parents have created for their families into three buckets based on quantity of screen time: the 39% of households that are 鈥渕edia-centric鈥� (11+ hours of screen time/day, with children spending 4-5 hours a day on-screen); the 45% that are 鈥渕edia-moderate鈥� (spending just under 5 hours on-screen/day, with children spending just under 3 hours); and the16% that are 鈥渕edia-light鈥� (generally with higher levels of income and education and spending even lower amounts of time with screen media, with children spending under 1.5 hours/day on-screen).

What does all this say about parenting these days? To Lynn Clark, it suggests that 鈥減arents will have to prepare children for a world that requires intentional effort as we seek to maintain the bonds that matter most to us.鈥� I鈥檓 with her on that and, if I can riff on it a little bit: Successful participation in social media (not to mention school, work and all social spaces in our kids鈥� futures) is conscious participation. It鈥檚 both social literacy and media literacy 鈥� a 鈥渞espectful connectedness,鈥� as Lynn put it, online and offline. It doesn鈥檛 only defeat bullying and other anti-social behavior, it develops the kind of protection that鈥檚 preventive and permanent 鈥� with our children all the time and all their lives 鈥� critical thinking and resilience. And we know from the research that it increases academic as well as social success.