Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
http://www.futureofchildren.org
The Future of Children CHILDREN AND COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY Vol. 10 No. 2 Fall/Winter 2000
http://www.futureofchildren.org
these physical risks is inferred from studies of adult use of computers in the workplace. For example, the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) within the U.S. Department of
Labor has reported that each year,
230,000 workers suffer injury from overexertion or repetitive motion, such as that
caused by excessive computer use.25
Citing the potential risks from, among
other things, using a keyboard again and
again, in November 1999, OSHA proposed new ergonomics requirements to
reduce injuries among workers caused by
excessive computer use. Excessive use of
computers by children could put them at
risk for similar injuries. More childfocused studies are needed to determine
how much computer use is too much for
children of different ages and how to
intersperse breaks and provide ergonomic supports to minimize risk.
Excessive computer use may also affect
childrens social development. By the age
of about seven years, a childs interactions
with family, peers, school, community networks, and media all play an important
role in the development of interpersonal
skills and social competence.26 Computers
are now part of that mix, and concerns
have been raised that children who form
electronic friendships instead of human
friendships might be hindered in developing interpersonal skills.27 Such concerns are heightened by reports that
among children ages 8 to 16, some 20%
have computersand 11% have Internet
accessin their bedrooms,28 which suggests that a sizable number of children
may use computers in social isolation.
Indeed, some research has documented
negative social effects from time spent on
computers. For example, one in-depth
analysis of the effects of Internet use
among a group of 93 families found that,
during their first year with access, teens
who spent more time online experienced
greater declines in social involvement and
increases in their feelings of loneliness
and depression.29 Similarly, in the school
setting, although group use of computers
is more common, concerns have been
raised about the possibility that computers may be used to replace, rather than
augment, child-to-child and child-toteacher relationships.22
10
RECOMMENDATION
More public and private research dollars
should be allocated to assessing the effects
of extended computer use and exposure to
various types of computer content on childrens physical, intellectual, social, and psychological development.
RECOMMENDATION
Parents, teachers, and other adults
working with children should limit the
amount of time children spend using
computers and supervise the content children are exposed to, including games,
software, and the Web.
11
12
RECOMMENDATION
Public, private, and nonprofit groups
concerned with the role of computer technology in society should support and
encourage the dialogue that has been initiated among researchers, software and
Internet companies, and government
agencies to create new incentives for developing high-quality content for children.
RECOMMENDATION
Schools and community organizations
should provide media literacy training
for teachers, parents, other adults who
work with children, and children themselves to strengthen their critical understanding of the motives underlying
much of the software and content found
on the Web and to empower children to
make good choices about their computer use.
13
14
RECOMMENDATION
State and local education agencies
should refine and adopt age-appropriate
guidelines for childrens computer fluency. Such guidelines should be disseminated to all elementary and secondary
teachers and incorporated into pre-service and in-service technology training
sessions.
RECOMMENDATION
The U.S. Department of Commerce
should work with industry to expand
opportunities for low-income families to
acquire home computers and Internet
access.
15
16
and running. For example, in collaboration with state library associations, the
Gates Foundation pledged $200 million
to equip public libraries in low-income
communities across the United States and
Canada with computer hardware, software, and Internet access.70
RECOMMENDATION
Public and private funders should support efforts by libraries and community
centers to include components within
their technology programs focused specifically on children and to provide staff with
training in the skills and types of exposure
appropriate for children of different ages.
In the mid-1990s, the Clinton administration enthusiastically embraced the congressional mandate to provide all our
nations children with access to computers
at school, launching the first national educational technology plan, Getting Americas
Students Ready for the 21st Century, in June
199673 and spending billions of dollars to
connect children to computers and the
Internet. The Education-rate (or E-rate)
program mentioned earlier has been key
to this effort. Since its creation in 1996, the
E-rate program has provided over $6 billion to help connect schools and libraries
to the Internet, with the major portion of
funding going to public schools. As of
2000, about 70,000 public schools were
participating in the program.69
Regardless of community income
level, nearly all public elementary and secondary schools now have access to computers and the Internet. According to the
most recent data from the National
Center for Education Statistics (NCES), as
of 1999, 90% of public schools serving
predominantly low-income students had
access to the Internet, only slightly less
than the 94% of schools serving predominantly high-income students.74 However,
having a computer does not necessarily
mean it is being used, or used well. In the
U.S. Department of Education report The
Condition of Education 2000, data from
1998 showed disparities between schools
reported access to computers and students use of computers.60,74 Although
over 90% of schools reported having computers connected to the Internet, only
68% of low-income students and 86% of
high-income students reported using
computers at school. These differences
most likely reflect differences in the capabilities and location of the computers
available to students.
As discussed in the article by Becker in
this journal issue, schools have often been
saddled with outdated, stand-alone comhttp://www.futureofchildren.org
RECOMMENDATION
The U.S. Department of Education
should assist the poorest schools in applying for E-rate discounts and encourage all
schools to offer a broad range of technology-related experiences to their students,
preferably connected to the curriculum in
ways that have been shown to be appropriate and effective.
17
18
RECOMMENDATION
When acquiring new hardware and
software, schools should consider options
that incorporate universal design features
to facilitate access to computers for all students, including those with special needs.
19
20
RECOMMENDATION
More public and private research dollars should be allocated to assessing the
effectiveness of technology-supported
practices in the classroom across various
subjects and grade levels and to disseminating the results to state and local education agencies and teachers.
21
22
Conclusions
Computer technology is rapidly transforming society. Although the task may
seem daunting, we can take several steps
to help ensure that children use computers in ways that improve their lives now
and in the future.
First, we can ensure that children
acquire the necessary skills to navigate the
digital world effectively and responsibly.
Parents, teachers, and other adults who
work with children can teach children to
make good choices about the time they
spend with computers, to be savvy digital
consumers, and to seek out software and
online content that educates and inspires,
not merely entertains. With our guidance
and enthusiasm, children can use the
computer to learn about other people
and parts of the world, for example, as
well as to play video games. If use of
higher-quality content increases, industry
can be challenged more effectively to
meet the demand.
Second, we can ensure that children
have opportunities to use computer technology more actively to create, to design,
to invent, and to collaborate with children
in other classrooms and communities.
These are types of activities that empower
children to play active roles in the emerging digital world, not merely to navigate
through it. With the assistance of highly
trained mentors, children can learn to use
computers to create finger paintings, or
to design and build bird feeders, for
example, as well as to surf the Web for the
lyrics of hit songs.
Third, we can help reduce disparities
between rich and poor by working to
narrow the gap in computer access
between children who live in low-income
neighborhoods compared with those in
high-income neighborhoods. Initiatives
that help low-income families to afford
home computers and that support technology programs in public libraries and
community centers can play an important
part in equalizing access. As the primary
access point for most low-income children, however, schools must play the critical role. To promote equality of digital
opportunity, we can ensure that schools
in low-income neighborhoods are well
23
24
1. National Center for Education Statistics. Internet access in public schools and classrooms:
199499. Stats in Brief. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of
Educational Research and Improvement, February 2000.
2. Woodward, E.H. IV, and Gridina, N. Media in the home 2000: The fifth annual survey of parents
and children. Philadelphia: Annenberg Public Policy Center, University of Pennsylvania,
2000, p. 11.
3. Committee on Information Technology Literacy and Computer Science and
Telecommunications Board, Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and
Applications, National Research Council. Being fluent with information technology.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1999, pp. 614.
4. Nie, N.H., and Erbring, L. Internet and society: A preliminary report. Stanford, CA: Stanford
Institute for the Quantitative Study of Society, February 17, 2000.
5. Internal Revenue Service. Projections of returns to be filed in calendar years 20002006,
Table 1. In Statistics of Income Bulletin, Winter 1999/2000, IRS Publication 1136, rev.
February 2000.
6. Ain, S. In brief: Election.com calls test in Arizona a success. Sunday Long Island Weekly Desk.
March 19, 2000; see also Ladd, D. Casting your vote on the Internet: Yea or nay. Interactive
Week from ZDWire. July 3, 2000.
7. Trotter, A. Question of effectiveness. Education Week: Technology counts 98, October 8, 1998,
18:69.
8. National School Boards Foundation. Safe and smart: Research and guidelines for childrens use
of the Internet. Alexandria, VA: NSBF, March 28, 2000.
9. Turow, J. The Internet and the family: The view from parents, the view from the press. Philadelphia:
Annenberg Public Policy Center, University of Pennsylvania, May 1999, pp. 14, 25.
10. Roberts, D.F., Foehr, U.G., Rideout, V.J., and Brodie, M. Kids and media @ the new millennium. Menlo Park, CA: Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, 1999.
11. National Telecommunications and Information Administration. Falling through the Net:
Defining the digital divide. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, July 1999.
http://www.futureofchildren.org
12. Chaney, H. The U.S. digital divide is not even a virtual reality. Bridge News. March 12,
2000.
13. Coley, R.J., Cradler, J. and Engel, P.E. Computers and classrooms: The status of technology in
U.S. schools. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service, Policy Information Center, 1996,
p. 8; and Public Law 103382, Improving Americas Schools of 1994. October 20, 1994,
Title III, Technology for Education, Part A, Technology for Education of All Students,
Sections 3111 and 3112.
14. See, for example, Benson, P.L. All kids are our kids: What communities must do to raise caring
and responsible children and adolescents. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1997, pp. 3233;
Steinhauser, P.D. The primary needs of children: A blueprint for effective health promotion at the
community level. Working paper for the Promotion/Prevention Task Force, Sparrow Lake
Alliance, prepared October 1995; see also Pipher, M. The shelter of each other: Rebuilding our
families. New York: Grosset/Putnam Books, 1996.
15. American Academy of Pediatrics. Fitness, activity, and sports participation in the preschool
child. Pediatrics (December 1992) 90:100204.
16. American Academy of Pediatrics. Media education. Pediatrics (August 1999)
104:34143.
17. See note no. 2, Woodward and Gridina, p. 19.
18. Special analyses from survey database described in Penuel, B., Golan, S., Means, B., et al.
Silicon Valley Challenge 2000: Year 4 report. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International, 2000.
19. For example, a survey conducted by America Online in February 1997 found that among
the 290 respondents, 20% of boys ages 6 to 19 reported using the Internet 29 hours or
more per week.
20. See the article by Subrahmanyam and colleagues in this journal issue for further discussion of this topic.
21. See note no. 2, Woodward and Gridina, p. 24.
22. Alliance for Childhood. Fools gold: A critical look at children and computers. College Park, MD:
Alliance for Childhood, September 12, 2000.
23. See, for example, Gortmaker, S.L., Must, A., Sobol, A.M., et al. Television viewing as a
cause of increasing obesity among children in the United States, 19861990. Archives of
Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine (April 1996) 150:35662.
24. Mendels, P. School computers may harm posture. New York Times. January 17, 1999, at 16;
see also Harris, C., and Straker, L. Survey of physical ergonomics issues associated with
school childrens use of laptop computers. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics
(2000) 26:33746; Palmer, S. Does computer use put childrens vision at risk? Journal of
Research and Development in Education (Winter 1993) 26:5965.
25. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Women and ergonomics. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA, March 2000.
26. Griffiths, M.D. Friendship and social development in children and adolescents:
The impact of electronic technology. Educational and Child Psychology (1997)
14:2537.
27. Colwell, J., Grady, C., Rhaiti, S. Computer games, self esteem, and gratification of
needs in adolescents. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology (1995)
5:195206.
28. See note no. 2, Woodward and Gridina, p. 3.
http://www.futureofchildren.org
25
26
29. Kraut, R., Patterson, M., Lundmark, V., et al. Internet paradox: A social technology that
reduces social involvement and psychological well-being? American Psychologist (1998)
53:101731.
30. See note no. 16, AAP. The Academy had earlier advised that television viewing should be
limited to no more than one to two hours per day. See American Academy of Pediatrics.
Children, adolescents, and television. Pediatrics (October 1995) 96:78687.
31. Based on original analysis of Census data included in the article by Becker in this journal
issue.
32. eCME News. Electronic Newsletter of the CME. September 8, 2000. Available online at
http://www.cme.org/publications/ecme/vol1_no1.html.
33. Funk, J. Reevaluating the impact of video games. Clinical Pediatrics (1993) 2:8689.
34. Gallup Organization, in conjunction with CNN, USA Today, and the National Science
Foundation. U.S. teens and technology. 1997. Some gender disparities continue to exist, however. See National Center for Education Statistics. Trends in educational equity of girls and
women. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research
and Improvement, March 2000; see also American Association of University Women. Techsavvy: Educating girls in the new computer age. Washington, DC: AAUW, 2000.
35. See the article by Roschelle and colleagues in this journal issue.
36. Zillmann, D., and Weaver, J. Psychoticism in the effect of prolonged exposure to gratuitous media violence on the acceptance of violence as a preferred means of conflict resolution. Personality and Individual Differences (May 1997) 22:61327; see also Zillman, D., and
Weaver, J. Effects of prolonged exposure to gratuitous media violence on provoked and
unprovoked hostile behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology (1999) 29:14565.
37. Fling, S., Smith, L., Rodriguez, T., et al. Videogames, aggression, and self-esteem: A survey.
Social Behavior and Personality (1992) 20:3945.
38. Oldberg, C. Children and violent video games: A warning. New York Times. December 15,
1998, at A16.
39. Dietz, T.L. An examination of violence and gender role portrayals in video games:
Implications for gender socialization and aggressive behavior. Sex Roles (1998) 38:42542.
40. Federal Trade Commission. Marketing violent entertainment to children: A review of self-regulation and industry practices in the motion picture, music recording and electronic game industries.
Washington, DC: Federal Trade Commission, September 2000.
41. Blanton, W.E., Moorman, G.B., Hayes, B.A., et al. Effects of participation in the Fifth
Dimension on far transfer. Boone, NC: Laboratory on Technology and Learning,
Appalachian State University, College of Education, May 30, 2000.
42. See Web site at http://www.pacificnews.org/yo.
43. See Web site at http://www.indiana.edu/~eric_rec/fl/pcto/menu.html.
44. See Web site at http://www.codetalk.fed.us/planet/planet.html.
45. The big picture demographics: U.S. teens increase online shopping. Marketers eRetail
Report. Internet.com. September 22, 1999.
46. Murray, J.P., Television and youth: 25 years of research and controversy. Boys Town, NE: The Boys
Town Center for the Study of Youth Development, 1980, pp. 1124.
47. Wartella, E., and Reeves, B. Historical trends in research on children and the media:
19001960. Journal of Communication (Spring 1985) 35:12223.
http://www.futureofchildren.org
http://www.futureofchildren.org
27
28
67. See the article by Becker in this journal issue for further discussion of this topic.
68. The E-rate program was authorized under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which
expanded the principle of universal access for wire and radio communications to include
Internet connections for schools and libraries. The program is administered by the
Schools and Libraries Division (SLD) of the Universal Service Administrative Company, a
not-for-profit corporation appointed by the Federal Communications Commission. For
more information, see the Program Overview page on the SLD Web site at
http://www.sl.universalservice.org.
69. U.S. Department of Education. E-rate and the digital divide: A preliminary analysis from the integrated studies of educational technology. Document no. 00-17, Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education, September 2000, p. vii.
70. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation: Overview. Seattle, WA: Bill and Melinda Gates
Foundation, 2000. Other private foundations active in supporting access through CTCs
and libraries include the Benton Foundation, the Annie E. Casey Foundation, the Kellogg
Foundation, and The California Wellness Foundation.
71. Resnick, M., and Rusk, N. Access is not enough: Computer clubhouses in the inner city.
The American Prospect (JulyAugust 1996) 27:6068.
72. For more information about Community Technology Centers, see http://www.ctcnet.org.
See also Penuel, W., and Kim, D. Promising practices and organizational challenges in community
technology centers. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International, 2000.
73. U.S. Department of Education. The 1996 National Educational Technology Plan. Online
document available at http://www.air.org/forum/goals.htm. See section titled Benefits of
Technology Use.
74. See note no. 1, NCES, February 2000. Income status is defined on the basis of the percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-price school lunch. Schools in the highest
income bracket have less than 11% of their students eligible for such programs, while
schools in the lowest income bracket have 71% or more eligible students.
75. Executive Office of the President of the United States, Presidents Committee of Advisors
on Science and Technology. Report to the president on the use of technology to strengthen K12
education in the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, March
1997. A 1997 While House Panel on Education Technology concluded that a large share
of the school computer inventory was obsolete and of very limited utility.
76. See, for example, note no. 34, AAUW, Tech-savvy; see also Schofield, J.W. Computers and
classroom culture. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
77. Bayha, B. The Internet: An inclusive magnet for teaching all students. Oakland, CA: World
Institute on Disability, March 1998.
78. Technology for Students with Disabilities: A Decision Makers Resource Guide. National
School Boards Association and the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special
Education Programs, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, 1997.
79. See note no. 13, P.L. 103382 (October 20, 1994).
80. Fatemi, E. Building the digital curriculum. Education Week: Technology counts 99. September
23, 1999, pp. 58.
81. See, for example, Sivin-Kachala, J., and Bialo, E.R. 1999 research report on the effectiveness of techology in schools. 6th ed. Washington, DC: Software and Information Industry Association, 1999.
82. U.S. Department of Education. Getting Americas students ready for the 21st century: Meeting the
technology literacy challenge. A report to the nation on technology and education. June 29,
1996. Available online at http://www.ed.gov/Technology/Plan/NatTechPlan/.
http://www.futureofchildren.org
83. Paraphrased from opening remarks by Marshall (Mike) Smith, Acting Deputy Secretary of
Education, at the Forum on Technology in Education: Envisioning the Future.
Washington, DC. December 12, 1999.
84. See Public Law 103227, Goals 2000: Educate America Act (March 31, 1994); see also
Olson, L. Worries of a standards backlash grow. Education Week. April 5, 2000, p. 1.
85. Means, B., Chelemer, C., and Knapp, M.S., eds. Teaching advanced skills to at-risk students:
Views from research and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1991.
86. See Heubert, J.P., and Hauser, R.M. High stakes: Testing for tracking, promotion, and
graduation. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1999; see also note no. 84, Olson.
87. See, for example, note no. 83, Forum, December 1999; see also Papert, S. Remarks to a
House of Representatives Panel on Technology and Education. Washington, DC: October
12, 1995.
88. Wenglinsky, H. Does it compute? The relationship between educational technology and student
achievement in mathematics. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service, September 1998.
89. Kulik, J.A. Meta-analytic studies of findings on computer-based instruction: An updated
analysis. In Technology assessment in education and training. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, 1994.
90. Svec, M.T. Effect of microcomputer-based laboratory on students graphing interpretation
skills and conceptual understanding of motion. Ph.D. Dissertation, Indiana University,
Bloomington, IN, Department of Education, June 1994; see also Thornton, R.K., and
Sokoloff, D.R. Learning motion concepts using real-time microcomputer-based laboratory
tools. American Journal of Physics (1990) 58:85866.
91. White, B.Y., and Fredriksen, J.R. Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science
accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction (1998) 16:63, 9091.
92. Collins, A., Hawkins, J., and Carver, S. A cognitive apprenticeship for disadvantaged students. In Teaching advanced skills to at-risk students: Views from research and practice. B. Means,
C. Chelemer, and M.S. Knapp, eds. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1991, pp. 21643.
93. See the article by Hasselbring and Williams Glaser in this journal issue for further discussion of this topic.
94. Zehr, M.A. The quest for quality: Screening for the best. Education Week: Technology counts
99. September 23, 1999, pp. 1322.
95. For more information about the panel and its findings, see the Department of Education
Web site at http://www.ed.gov/offices/OERI/ORAD/LTD/panel.html.
96. Who should teach? The states decide. Education Week (January 13, 2000) 19:89. See also
the articles by Becker, by Roschelle and colleagues, and by Hasselbring and Williams
Glaser in this journal issue.
97. See note no. 82, U.S. Department of Education, June 29, 1996, Executive Summary.
98. National Center for Education Statistics. Stats in brief: Teacher use of computers and the Internet
in public schools. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational
Research and Improvement, NCES 2000090, April 2000.
99. See the summary of responses from Teaching, Learning and Computing: 1998A National Survey
of Schools and Teachers (TLC-1998), as presented in the article by Becker in this journal issue.
100. Data from Chambers, et al., cited by Jerald, C.D., and Orlofsky, G.F. Raising the bar on
school technology. Education Week: Technology counts 99. September 23, 1999, p. 63. Also
named as the biggest barrier in Education Weeks own survey of teachers, p. 40.
http://www.futureofchildren.org
29
30
101. Trotter, A. Preparing teachers for the digital age. Education Week: Technology counts 99.
September 23, 1999, p. 43. As shown on p. 18, in this survey, teachers identified expense as
the biggest problem with digital content, followed by amount of class and preparation
time required.
102. See Hoff, D.J. Making the match: Digital content and the curriculum. Education Week:
Technology counts 99. September 23, 1999, pp. 5157.
http://www.futureofchildren.org