While I'm sure most who read this title will automatically think this post is about the current political scene, I'm actually thinking about someone else. Though, now that I think about it, it may not be completely unrelated.
Discussing the validity and value of new instructional methods and tools and social change brought on by these tools is important. We need to all think critically about what we are doing and be open to changing direction if a new path seems to be a dead end or leading into trouble. Legitimate discussion and argument are important tools of change.
But there is a type of argument that I find utterly infuriating, which is using trump words. Trump words are terms that have power in themselves, and once they are applied to something, whether legitimately or not, any effort to refute the statement makes a person look like they are embracing something terrible. Trump words win without earning it. There are many of these in the area of technology, but for illustration we will focus on one today and another tomorrow.
The first of these words, which I have primarily heard in the past year, is screen time. Parents and educators are able to criticize one to one device programs or the shift from paper work to digital work by claiming that children have too much screen time. This term is usually accompanied by some statistics about the affect of screen time on the brain, on sleep patterns, on behavior. We clearly must keep these kids away from these screens. Some also point to claims that interacting with screens is affecting the wiring of the young brain. To argue for screen time seems after this to be wishing evil upon children.
There are three problems with this trump word. The first is there is no definitive study that proves any of this more than anecdotally (sloppy science is the best friend of trump words). Second, there is no definitive statement of what “too much” screen time is. I suspect that working on a screen twenty-four hours a day would affect a child's behavior, mainly because the child would never sleep. Is one hour a day OK? Is two?… For most proponents of this argument, too much is ten minutes more than they want. I certainly am not saying that all students' activity at school and at home should be digitally based. I have always argued the importance of creating a balance of time on and off devices. However, parents also want students prepared for the modern workplace, and the modern workplace requires screen time.
Finally, this argument works with the underlying assumption that if if there are effects, that screen time will always affect children (and us) in the same way. I am certain when humans began to interact with words on a page, this caused dramatic changes to brain structure. Everything we encounter changes our brain structure. Even if humans are still adapting to our interaction with digital devices, this does not mean that this adaptation is bad or that it always will be so. It can be frightening to picture a world where people learn, produce, and communicate in ways that their ancestors did not, but this is the story of the human race.
What is most irritating about this word is that it is an agenda driven, rather than student driven, word. It is used to stop a program or to halt exploration of new tools. Many of these people are the same ones who tried the same tactic with wifi in the classroom. They make any movement in this area a direct assault on children, rather than sincere efforts to help children in the most authentic way possible.
As always, I welcome your comments.
Image: http://www.torange.us/Backgrounds-textures/abstract-backgrounds/Words-of-the-poet-29074.html
Posted with Blogsy