海角大神

Readers, this post (like a few others, recently) is inspired by my participation on the听听that got started last month. The task force would love to have you join us in what we hope will become a nationwide conversation about safe, successful听and听connected learning. Please sign up to join the conversation听, and you鈥檒l get more information shortly. [Thanks to听听for inspiring this particular post.] 听

It probably comes as no surprise that, where the Internet鈥檚 concerned, parents are more protectionist than they are empowering or skill-oriented. The latest confirmation comes from research by University of Rhode Island student Kelly Mendoza for her PhD dissertation. The subjects of her research don鈥檛 necessarily represent all parents 鈥� 鈥渋t was a non-representative sample of relatively affluent and well-educated mothers (with a few exceptions),鈥� reports media professor Renee Hobbs in URI鈥檚听听鈥� but there are lots of insights to mine from that sample, including a better picture of what 鈥渙ver-parenting鈥� might look like (see also the 3rd study I link to听听in the University of California, Davis, Law Review).

鈥淎lthough a majority of parents use a combination of protectionist and empowerment strategies,鈥� Dr. Hobbs writes, 鈥渕ost rely on protectionist Internet mediation overall. Even though parents report having confidence in empowerment strategies, they are less likely to use them. Parents rated protectionist strategies as simply more effective than empowerment strategies.鈥�

To control, or to engage & explore?

Take a look at Hobbs鈥檚 examples of (bulleted) protectionist and empowerment approaches, but the former category might be summed up as controlling (rules, restrictions, parental control tools, etc.) and the latter one as engaging with our kids in digital spaces 鈥� basically, controlling vs. exploring. As we put it in our听2009听听鈥淥nline Safety 3.0鈥�听doc, one can approach it as safety听from听negative stuff or as safety听for听enriching, effective participation.

Hobbs reflects on why parents lean to the protectionist approach. If they have confidence in empowerment, as Mendoza found, what are the downsides 鈥� why don鈥檛 they adopt an enabling approach? She offers two possible reasons: the considerable time that productive engagement requires when parents are trying to reduce, not increase, their children鈥檚 鈥渟creen time鈥� and the perception that increased Net use can increase risk (of 鈥渟pam, malware, and porn鈥�).

My own observations since the late 鈥�90s have turned up other reasons, including this underlying one: the nearly 20-year development of a public discourse that has long associated children鈥檚 use of technology with negative, often worst-case, outcomes shaping the policy agenda (e.g., see听), news coverage, and to some extent the听听(see听听about the public policy agenda). Through the years a number of studies 鈥� the headline-grabbing kind, not the academic kind 鈥� have even polled parents about their concerns, creating concerns about concerns (see听). Then there鈥檚 sociologist听听about the cause of what I鈥檇 call this digital siege mentality (see听听about a possible antidote for parents). It could be argued that fear has hijacked the national discourse about children in digital media and 21st-century learning.

So I have a hypothesis鈥�

Parents鈥� continuous exposure, over a decade and a half, to negative political messaging and news reporting and lack of exposure to social media research (exposing the positive and neutral impacts of digital media) has biased them toward controlling rather than exploring new media with their children. Whether or not you agree, shouldn鈥檛 we at least be asking about the effects of overexposure to fear on parenting and education as much as we鈥檝e been asking about the effects of overexposure to digital screens on growing up? (See听.)

Several years ago,听听at the Harvard School of Education talked with a lot of young people who felt a听. Not a big surprise with social media being consistently represented as, at best, a waste of time and young people as time-wasters, media addicts, and potential victims of pornographers, predators, and cyberbullies. In my own experience asking a group of 7th-graders what they thought the No. 1 Internet risk was, they reflexively answered 鈥減redators,鈥� but then not one could think of any brush they鈥檇 had with a predator, nor did they know anybody who had. So how effective is it to spread misinformation and instill in our children exaggerated fears, powerlessness, and a reflexive deprecation of the very media they need to master?

It鈥檚 not a binary

Hobbs suggests that maybe it doesn鈥檛 have to be an either/or, protectionist vs. empowering binary. She writes that both are needed. I agree, but what I also yearn to see in the public discussion about youth safety is more signs of a growing understanding that empowerment听itself听is protective.

In the area of inappropriate content, for example, Ofsted, Britain鈥檚 education regulatory body, published a听听of 37 schools鈥� Internet safety practices in 2010. It found that what characterized the best schools for Net safety was that they didn鈥檛 take a 鈥渓ocked down鈥� approach to the Internet but rather a 鈥渕anaged鈥� one. They helped students take responsibility for safe use themselves. In the area of safe听social media听use, learning the emotion detection and management skills of social-emotional literacy (SEL)听.

So certainly it鈥檚 not that we need less protection; it鈥檚 that we need a clearer understanding of how essential empowerment is to young users鈥� protection in user-driven media and participatory culture. Can you have mastery in anything without some trial and error in/with it? Even听听that young people can鈥檛 have opportunity 鈥� or develop the internal protection of resilience 鈥� without exposure to risk online. That鈥檚 true of life too, isn鈥檛 it? Trial-and-error develops life literacy. This is not new to parenting.

So as Kelly Mendoza found in her research, 鈥減arents rated protectionist strategies as simply more effective than empowerment strategies,鈥� Hobbs wrote. More effective for what? For keeping kids offline as much as possible, rather than for helping them develop the skills and literacies of safe, successful participation in today鈥檚 networked world.