Sara Dewitt, Children Media
Expert at TED, yield a seminar on how technology can improve a child’s learning
ability; “DeWitt envisions a future where we're
excited to see kids interacting with screens and shows us exciting ways new
technologies can actually help them grow, connect and learn” (TED). By using
new technologies, children may improve the way they learn. Dewitt, wanted to grab her audience attention
by making a parallel between parents using their phone devices, verses their children
using new technology. Dewitt adds, “within the first five minutes of waking up,
40 percent of Americans look at their phones […], they look at their phone 50
times during the day. Grownups consider this device to be a necessity.” In
today society parent’s do not consider the affects phones have on them. There
was a turning point in her presentation, she wanted the audience to see what
would happen if you were to put a phone in a three-year-old hand, the child becomes
excited and anxious. However, the parent becomes worried and frighten of the
device. Parents
become worried that new technologies will control the children’s mindset, and
keep them from getting up and moving.
Dewitt portrays that parents fear
technology is disrupting their children’s childhood. She argues that parent’s
views on phones may hurt the child growth, but she introduces a strategy that
screens can get their children up and moving, “they have the power to tell us
more about what a child is learning than a standardized test can” (Dewitt). Her thesis of this study
is that screens can prompt better communication skills between parents and
their kids. She used great examples in her presentation to support her
argument. Dewitt’s first study and interaction were with a three-year-old named
Maria. Maria has never seen a computer or knew how to use it, the first thing
Dewitt thought her was how to use the mouse and keyboard. Maria began to move
the mouse across the screen and stopped on the letter “X” for the Owl. The Owl
lifted his wing and waved at her. Maria became excited, she dropped the mouse,
leaped up and began to wave back. Dewitt stated, “Her connection to that
character was visceral. This wasn't a passive screen experience. This was a
human experience. And it was exactly appropriate for a three-year-old” (Dewitt). During the presentation, there was
no question asked, but she drew her audience attention in closer by using
prompts. She showed how technology is positive in children’s lives.
In today society parent faced three common
fears: screens are passive, video games have a bad influence, and screens can
isolate kid’s interactions with parents. Dewitt used examples to support her
facts against these three fears. For example, with the support of a software, the screen camera could capture a kid pretending to be a
bat. Dewitt was using this simulation to show how kids loved seeing themselves
on-screen with wings, and how screens are not passive. Kids were able to
remember bats habitat lifestyle the way they sleep and eat. This software also
allowed the children to view other species with wings habitats and lifestyle,
“the digital technology prompted embodied learning that kids can now take out
into the world” (Dewitt). The second fear parents have about screens are that video
gaming distract their child learning ability. Dewitt argues that game
developers could learn more about a player’s skill by looking at data to see
where the child paused the game, where they made several mistakes before
finding the right answer. The reasoning for the method was to take a toolset
and apply it to a child academic learning, “in Boston, WGBH, created a series
of Curious George games focused on math. And researchers came in and had 80
preschoolers play these games. They then gave all 80 of those preschoolers a
standardized math test” (Dewitt). The game was helping the child learn some key
skills. They used this simulation to predict a child math scores based on
playing the Curious George game. According to Dewitt, “the team that did
this study believes that games like these can teach us more about a child's
cognitive learning than a standardized test can”
(Dewitt). Down below is a chart: The first chart is a subset
standardized child math scores. The second chart is the computer prediction of
the children’s math score after playing “Curious George games”. The games were
not built as an assessment but a team who did these studies can teach us a
child cognitive learning.
The third
reason isolates kid’s interactions with parents. Dewitt uses a scenario in
her presentation, “parent, and you need 25 minutes of uninterrupted time to
get dinner ready. And in order to do that, you hand a tablet to your
three-year-old” (Dewitt). This is where parents feel guilty of giving their
child the tablet. They do not know what the child might do to it. Later, in the
presentation, she said the parent received a text message saying your child
just matched five rhyming words. This is the moment where parents should
interact with their child at the dinner table, and ask them words that rhyme.
The act of talking to kids about their
media can be incredibly powerful. During her speech she did very
little pacing and moved every ten minutes, but she kept her audience engaged by
using examples. When she brought her personal life into her presentation she
took the audience down a path. She also used little a humor as she compared the
interaction with her four-year-old, “Were you playing a car game earlier today?
And Benjamin perked up and said, ‘Yes! And did you see that I made my car
out of a pickle? It was really hard to open the trunk’” (Dewitt). She was
not suggesting all social media is great for kids, but they are legitimate
reasoning why parents should allow their kids to use the screens more often.
She asked several questions:
1. What
if games could reduce testing time in the classroom?
2. What
if they could reduce testing anxiety?
3. How
could they give teachers snapshots of insight to help them better focus
their individualized learning?
Finally, I
was engaged with Sara Dewitt’s presentation and her remarks made me think
more. I’m not a parent, but I do have nieces, nephews, and cousins who are six
to ten years old. I thought phones were very disruptive. Once I watched this
video, I have a different outlook on children using technology to improve their
growth and learning. However, it is important that parents interact with their
children, while or after using technology, to improve the child’s learning
ability. Dewitt used an example, to show how she engaged with her son. The more
question she asked about his car made out a pickle, it kept him thinking on
ways to improve his car. Children are the future and they can teach others something
new, “but when we fixate on our fears about it, we forget a major
point, and that is, that kids are living in the same world that we live
in” (Dewitt). This is the world where Americans check their phones more than 50
times a day. We must have a positive outlook on technology when it comes to
children using screens to learn more.
Thank you.
