Technology & Learning: Legos in the dark

When is it appropriate to give children technology? Do you give a infant a cell phone? Can toddlers operate radio controlled toys?

This week we looked at technology and learning. There are a couple main thoughts: does exposure to technology help or hurt children? Why do children seem to know intuitively how to operate technology (smartphones, VCRs, MP3 players, tablets, etc.)

Having grown up in the technology age, I don't believe technology has hurt me, but of course, I am hardly objective about it. My son has been using a computer of one type or another since he was four or five years old (or younger). He learned to use a mouse and/or trackball pointing device quickly and then applied that to other devices (toys) that tried to be computer-like. As he has gotten older, he has learned to use touch screens (smartphones, tablets) as well as the mouse.

Learning to read improved his ability to navigate through various technology devices (VCRs, video game consoles, etc.) and learning the meaning of words like "source," "menu," "auxiliary," etc., has further empowered him to navigate his way autonomously across devices.

Of the newer devices we have in our home because of our twin four-year old daughters, I notice device manufacturers and/or software developers are pairing words with images on the controls (Leapster, Leapfrog tablet) of devices for children, allowing kids to navigate through the various screens to play games by themselves at even younger ages. What's interesting is that I notice these same "icons" on devices (Kindle, smartphones, etc.) for adults, too.

I think manufacturers are working to make the interfaces more simple and intuitive for all ages, reducing reading as a barrier for use. Much the way the universal roadway signs are used across the globe now, ensuring drivers know the road ahead is "curvy" because of the picture on the sign, not because the driver can read the words "sharp turn ahead" if the sign is in English and the driver is fluent in French.

There has been some research (oddly, much of it coming from the UK) trying to determine if the early use of technology is harmful to children. My review of the literature seems to point that the findings are far from conclusive one way or another. As a parent, I can see where unsupervised and non-age appropriate exposure to the use of technology could lead to potential issues, but if the children are using the technology in an age-appropriate manner with parent or adult supervision and involvement, I believe that should ensure no harm comes to the child.

In our house (much to the chagrin of my son), we have established "screen time" allotments for every day. For instance, he is allowed three hours total for recreational screen time: television, video games, computer use (other than school work) or movies. And further ruining his life, we don't allow him to use video games on his Xbox or Wii unless they are rated appropriately for his age group, regardless of what "all his other friends are allowed to" do. Even some of the ones rated for "teen" are banned in our home if they are too graphic, violent or sexual in nature. Yes, we are those parents: involved.

At four years old, the twins rarely use their Leapster video games -- which are actually educational games teaching them to count, colors, letters, etc. -- for a combined three hours each day.

The twins are more likely to play for 20 minutes and move on to some other toy. They utilize more TV screen time than video games or computer use. Again, their TV use is geared more for educational programming, so the use of technology is far from harmful. And, of course, Family Movie & Pizza Night (Fridays) doesn't count toward any one's screen time, as it is family time which means my wife and I are actively involved in whatever movie or program we happen to be watching together as a family.

My son actually learned to read by using the computer program Hooked on Phonics, further combining technology with learning. My youngest daughter is well on her way to the same outcome using her Leapster. The technology has allowed both children to learn at their own pace, despite being nearly 10 years apart.

Back to my original questions: Of course, an infant can't independently use a cell phone, but they can learn from mimicking the behavior they see others engaging in as to the use of a cell phone. A toddler most likely cannot successfully use a radio controlled helicopter or car as his or her fine motor skills aren't refined enough, but toddlers definitely can successfully utilize age-appropriate technology, allowing them to be prepared for adoption of more technologically advanced devices as they get older.

I am excited about the marvels my children will have the opportunity to experience as they get older and more and more advances are made in the technology we use in our everyday lives. And the advances they will get to share with their own kids, someday? Very exciting, heady stuff.

With active parental supervision and involvement, age-appropriate technology wouldn't be any more harmful -- or potentially harmful -- than any other toy. Any toy, regardless of its level of technology, can be dangerous if used incorrectly. Ever stepped on a Lego block in the dark? I believe I have made my case.

~~~~~~
David has three children under the age of 14, including four-year old twin daughters. His wife, a web designer getting a Master's degree in Psychology,  is a self-professed techno-geek and an early adopter of all cool gadgets that do not include the ability to photograph her. Despite the dangers and terror Lego blocks bring to the night shadows, they believe advanced technology promotes early learning and creativity even with Legos.

Citizen Journalists & Blogging: Buyer Beware

I started blogging back in 2004, like many people, using the Weblog as an online personal diary or sorts, giving me a place to post images of the home renovations I was doing as well as a place to write down my feelings and thoughts about my relationship with my then-current wife and her daughters. Being the clever guy I am, I named it "David's Home Work" as it included all manner of things going on at my home. We had recently purchased a small two-bedroom house and I was converting the two car garage into two new bedrooms and a mudroom.

That was my introduction to weblogs. I have been a blogger ever since. To date, I believe I have authored three different blogs, one jointly with my current wife, about our experiences raising three children: one who spent his first decade being the center of the universe and the twin sisters he gained who turned his universe on end. This is the fourth blog I have created. I feel that my blogging has matured, much like blogging in general has matured. I will state the obvious, though. "Matured" is not the same as "mature." And that goes equally for me as well as the entire blog-osphere.

My blogging has, until now, been more about tracking my own life and the events and/or milestones that have shaped my life. Blogging in general has grown to give a voice to people all around the world, not just for their own uses as a diary, but also as a means of sharing information in a format similar to media outlets. You can now find a wide variety of blogs about various products, services, information and community action/service.

Many of the information blogs are treated and styled like highly targeted newspapers or magazines, but online. These outlets have given rise to what has been termed "citizen journalists," the people publishing these blogs. There are many reasons why people publish these "news blogs" but its usually because they feel the mainstream media is 1) ignoring an important story, 2) corrupt, or 3) both.

A great study published in New Media & Society (2010) looked at political blogs and why they began and why they continued to blog. The reasons given included statements like "to provide an alternative perspective to the  mainstream media," "to help society," "to inform people about the most relevant information on topics of interest," and many more external motivations. Their internal motivations were primarily "to let off steam" but that reason faded when current motivations were considered. The findings of the study demonstrated that these political bloggers learned over time that there was a real need and desire from readers to hear an alternative viewpoint from the mainstream media relating to the political activities in the United States.

Using this one example, we can speculate that there is a similar need or desire for alternative viewpoints from the mainstream media in other areas, too, like sports, business, religions, nonprofit agencies, etc. This need has given rise to more and more of these citizen journalists establishing and promoting blogs that offer an different view of the events happening in these other areas of interest.

But just because I am motivated to publish a blog, does that mean people should actually pay attention or believe the information I publish? One of the findings from the study mentioned above was that these political bloggers found they could actually shape the national conversation to some degree by the information they provided on their blog. That can be a pretty heady position to be in for people. Having the ability to shape or even set the national agenda or conversation as it relates to a particular topic is very powerful. And we all know, power has the ability to corrupt.

Markham Nolan,  managing editor of Storyful.com, provided a great discussion on TED Talks about how journalists today have to filter through all the information available on the internet (including blogs) in an effort to provide accurate information. He provided some interesting facts about the sheer volume of information being added to the internet every minute, cautioning everyone that sifting through all that information is becoming harder and harder. Nolan had some eye-opening examples about how information can be quickly verified or debunked, but his closing message applies to the entire internet, including blogs: there is a lot of information available on the internet. Not all of it is accurate, not all of it is truthful. People using the internet need to be vigilant about the information they collect, read or use from online and be sure to confirm the validity of that information before using it.

Citizen bloggers are a great resource for people who want an alternative view or perspective from the mainstream media. Often these bloggers are motivated for good reasons to help others and serve as watchdogs for business, media and government. But relying solely on these bloggers can be treacherous, as they are not always trained as journalists. Journalists in traditional media environments are taught to fact-check their stories before ever sending it to press or air. Citizen bloggers are not always that professional, and may rush to publish information that is yet to verified or confirmed as accurate. It remains up to the media consumer, whether it be mainstream media, blogs or fringe media, to decide what information is real, accurate or appropriate for their own consumption.

Media Convergence: Good, Bad & Ugly

A topic that continues to gain attention in the technology and scholarly circles, but goes essentially unnoticed by the general populace is media convergence. Simply put, media convergence is the blending of various media platforms (print, broadcast, telecommunications, computing) into a “new” method (platform?) for distributing information to receivers.  There is another side to this convergence, the actual devices used (computers, phones, TVs, radios, etc.) but for the purpose of this blog entry, I am just referring to the content.

For example, moving from the past overlap between television, computers and newspapers…

…to something more like this…

I apologize for the less than great graphic, but in this age of media convergence, there are times when I still struggle with the convergence of images and text. But hopefully what I am trying to convey is a little clearer when I talk about media convergence. Radio content can be accessed over the Internet as well as your smartphone. Television programming and movies can be accessed over your computer, smartphone and tablet. Traditional newspaper content can be found online as well as directed right to your smartphone, tablet and computer.

This convergence of various platforms can be a very good thing. Or a bad thing. Or a very ugly, nasty devious thing. Let’s look at each possibility.

The Good

I currently work for the largest home improvement retailer in the world. Not as a communicator, but as a merchandising supervisor. I spend a lot (almost all) of my time out on the sales floor, working to ensure the various merchants we represent get their products correctly placed and merchandised on the sales floor. We handle a TON of information, supplied to us by the vendors, our own internal merchants, our regional managers, district managers and central support services. It comes to us as email, training videos transmitted via computer and web links.

And somewhere, I am sure there is a real, hard copy paper printout of everything I receive. Having that information accessible at each computer terminal on the sales floor is a great thing. However, in any given store, there may only be 10-12 computer terminals available and perhaps 30-35 people needing to use or access those computers at any given time throughout the day. So my ability to access that information can be hampered by the accessibility of those terminals.

However, if I could access that same information on a tablet or even on my smartphone while I am standing in front of a bay getting reset, I could potentially increase the overall productivity of my team. Granted, that is more about the actual device, but if the content is not available for use on a variety of platforms, having the device would be pointless.

The point is, no matter where I am – in front of a bay, in front of a computer or even in my car (safely parked, not driving) if I have the same access to the information, I can drive the productivity of my team up and impact the overall efficiency of my team. This is good. Especially at my annual review.

Providing the same information whether it be in a newspaper, an online version of a newspaper, or sent directly to a tablet or smartphone increases access of that information by the end user/reader. Access to information – in the information age – is a very good thing. Granted, not all information is good/valid/accurate, but it is up to the end user to ferret out the accurate from the inaccurate, the reliable from the unreliable or the facts from the opinions.

For retailers, though, trying to get their products and information in front of consumers, the ability of taking one image/video and using it on TV, radio (the audio track), in newspapers, magazines, via the web or sent directly to smartphones and tablets is maximizing their advertising and marketing dollars.

The Bad

A very real issue that I face in my job is that while my access to information seems to be increasing, my access to information seems to be increasing. At times I can be overrun with information. I can go from a single email one day, to an onslaught of emails, copies of emails and copies of emails previously copied the next day. So increasing my access to this information via whichever platform only means I will have more places to check – which will reduce my time to actually get things done.

That can be a bad outcome of this media convergence. Information overload. Feeling constantly bombarded or flooded with information. The static kitten images were cute and then the little videos of kittens on Facebook were funny, but I really don’t want kitten-related intros sent to my smartphone when I’m just trying to look up the address of the closest Wendy’s for lunch.

As an aside, when answering a question from an audience member about dealing with an overabundance of email, Merlin Mann noted in 2007 that “you may just have to talk to them,” implying an actual face-to-face conversation might be required in order to get a handle on being flooded by what amounts to unnecessary emails. Go figure. Put technology aside and actually talk to someone personally? What a concept. (yes, a bit of sarcasm)

The Ugly (and insidious)

If this media convergence continues, what happens to the sources of all this information? If the entertainment company buys a news conglomerate that already owns television and radio broadcasting companies and newspapers and magazines, how diversified is the information being “reported” or covered?

The “story” may appear all over the various media platforms, which on the surface gives it a certain level of credibility, but if it all originates from a single source, is it really news or an attempt at agenda setting by the few, powerful companies that exert their influence in an effort to benefit their own goals and aspirations? Would companies actually engage in such devious and insidious endeavors to line their own pockets with wealth and power? It could and does happen. One final word: Enron.

What are your thoughts on media convergence? Good, bad or ugly? Why?

                              ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

About the Author: David is a husband and proud father of a strapping 14 year-old son and twin 4 year-old daughters. He has 20 years of professional communication experience, working in the public relations field. He has worked for public relations firms, hospitals and a social service organization helping at-risk children and their families. He grew up on a Michigan blueberry farm, spent two years in Texas and now resides with his family outside Tampa, Florida. An avid reader and photographer, David also enjoys building rustic furniture using upcycled wooden pallets.