BUU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 239: Spm. om relevante forskningspublikationer angående Esport, Gaming, Didaktik og undervisning, til børne- og undervisningsministeren

Børne- og Undervisningsudvalget 2019-20
BUU Alm.del
Offentligt

WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT

CHILDREN AND TECHNOLOGY?

This brochure summarises some of the main findings from the Centre for Educational Research and

Innovation’s (CERI) 21st Century Children project. It was prepared by Tracey Burns and Francesca

Gottschalk. Sophie Limoges was responsible for the design and providing editorial support.

BUU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 239: Spm. om relevante forskningspublikationer angående Esport, Gaming, Didaktik og undervisning, til børne- og undervisningsministeren

FOREWORD

We are more connected than ever before. Many children have access to tablets

and smartphones before they learn to walk and talk. This begs the question:

What are the impacts of technology on children, and how can screens impact

their growth and development?

This is an area where there is an urgent need for robust research to guide policy and

practice. Shock headlines such as “Have Smartphones Destroyed a Generation?”

and claims that technology is “re-wiring” children’s brains are dramatic, but to

what extent do they reﬂect what we actually know rather than anxieties with

tools we do not yet understand? This brochure brings together research from the

OECD’s 21st Century Children project to summarise some of the guidelines that

have been established for children’s use of screens. It also provides an overview

of the research on the impact of using technologies – including television, video

games and social media – on children’s developing brains and bodies. Lastly,

it looks at the role of schools and teachers in supporting and guiding safe and

responsible technology use.

People tend to be scared, or at least wary, of new developments in technology.

Yet we live in an age where digital tools have fundamentally transformed the

world, and the reality of children’s lives. We owe it to our children and youth to

separate fact from ﬁction, and help support them to get the best start in life.

Andreas Schleicher

Director, Education and Skills, OECD

BUU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 239: Spm. om relevante forskningspublikationer angående Esport, Gaming, Didaktik og undervisning, til børne- og undervisningsministeren

Technology trends in the 21st century

We are more connected than ever. At the end of 2017,

the number of high-speed mobile subscriptions in OECD

countries reached a milestone: more subscriptions than

the number of people (OECD, 2019). And young people are

particularly active on line. In 2015, a typical 15-year-old

reported using the Internet since the age of 10 and spending

more than two hours every weekday on line after school (an

increase of over 40 minutes since 2012), and more than three

hours every weekend day (OECD, 2017).

Not only are youth using the Internet more, they are doing

so at younger ages (Hooft-Graaﬂand, 2018). Some research

suggests that preschoolers become familiar with digital

devices before they are exposed to books (Hopkins, Brookes

and Green, 2013). In the United Kingdom, the most recent

ﬁgures show that 52% of 3-4 year-olds and 82% of 5-7 year-

olds are on line (Ofcom, 2019).

Figure 1. Snapshot of children’s media use in the UK

Source: adapted from Ofcom, 2019

BUU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 239: Spm. om relevante forskningspublikationer angående Esport, Gaming, Didaktik og undervisning, til børne- og undervisningsministeren

WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT CHILDREN AND TECHNOLOGY?

Over-concerned about being “over-connected”?

The rise in children’s use of technology has led to growing

concern about how it aﬀects children’s brains, bodies and

their socio-emotional, cognitive and physical development.

Many groups concerned with children’s health, including

governments and medical societies, advocate for partially

or fully limiting screen time for children. However, “restriction

focused” guidelines are criticised by experts in the ﬁeld as

not being based on robust research.

Currently, scientiﬁc research:

• is not conclusive enough to support evidence-based

guidelines on optimal amounts of screen use or online

activities (Gottschalk, 2019); and

• does not provide evidence of a causal relationship between

screen-based activities and mental health problems, although

some associations between screen-based activities and

anxiety or depression have been found (OECD, 2018, Orben

and Przybylski, 2019).

However, it is still wise to take a precautionary approach

including turning oﬀ devices when not in use, switching oﬀ

screens an hour before bed, and designating times (e.g. while

having dinner or driving) and locations (e.g. the bedroom) as

media-free.

Most importantly, it is key to maintain a focus on the activities

that are strongly associated with healthy development, such

as good quality, regular sleep and quality time spent with

family and friends. These and many other factors are more

important than taking a hard line over screen time limits to

ensure the best start in life.

Evidence-based guidelines: an example of good practice from the United Kingdom

The UK Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health Recommendations are based on a comprehensive

review of the evidence on the eﬀects of screen time on children’s physical and mental health.

Given the lack of causal evidence linking screen time to negative child health, the guidelines focus on

aspects of child well-being, such as online safety (i.e. from bullying, exploitation etc.) and access to

inappropriate content. The main recommendation is that families negotiate screen time with children, based

on the needs of the child and on which screens are in use and how they may or may not displace other

health-related behaviours or social activities.

The guide poses four questions to be used by families to examine how they use screens. If families are

satisﬁed with their responses, it is likely they are doing well regarding screen time. The questions are:

1. Is screen time in your household controlled?

2. Does screen use interfere with what your family wants to do?

3. Does screen use interfere with sleep?

4. Are you able to control snacking during screen time?

The guide ﬁnishes with a set of recommendations on how families can reduce screen time, if they feel the

need. This includes protecting sleep, prioritising face-to-face interaction and being aware of parents’ media

use, as children tend to learn by example.

Source: Viner, Davie, Firth (2019).

BUU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 239: Spm. om relevante forskningspublikationer angående Esport, Gaming, Didaktik og undervisning, til børne- og undervisningsministeren

Childhood is a time of rapid development

It is evident that children are spending more time on line, and

at earlier ages. This may be signiﬁcant because childhood is

a time of rapid growth, development and maturation. One

important element of the human brain is that it is “plastic”,

which means that it changes in response to experiences.

Childhood is a period of high brain plasticity. During the ﬁrst

three years of life, a child’s brain may create over one million

new connections per second - essential for the development

of hearing, language and cognition (Center on the Developing

Child, 2009). These basic capacities create the foundation

for the neural networks underlying more complex activities,

such as decision-making and cognitive flexibility. Brain

imaging studies have shown that these changes in function

are accompanied by extensive structural alterations in the

adolescent brain (Crone and Konijn, 2018).

“Rewiring” children’s brains takes a little more than some

screen time

Due to the plasticity in childhood, there is a lot of concern

about technology “rewiring” children’s brains. Unfortunately,

there is an abundance of misinformation on this topic that

has fed into fears and misplaced anxiety about how and how

much children use technology. A quick google search shows

how fearful people are of screens

Fortunately, major brain changes and “rewiring” resulting

from screen time is unlikely (Mills, 2014). Children’s outcomes

are the product of many diﬀerent factors, including their

experiences and environment (along with other factors such

as genetics). While technology will have an impact on them,

the key is to maximise the cognitive, physical and social

beneﬁts it brings while minimising the risks.

BUU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 239: Spm. om relevante forskningspublikationer angående Esport, Gaming, Didaktik og undervisning, til børne- og undervisningsministeren

WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT CHILDREN AND TECHNOLOGY?

Impacts of technology on children

The impact of technology depends on the type of technology

and what it is used for (Bavelier, Green and Dye, 2010). It is

thus important to better understand how and why technology

is used, and the variety of devices children choose.

Young people use the Internet for gaming, chatting and social

networking. Although televisions and tablets dominate media

use in children, traditional television is increasingly being

replaced by services such as Netflix and Amazon Prime, and

YouTube is quickly becoming the viewing platform of choice

especially for 8-11 year-olds (Ofcom, 2019 ). Children may

use computers during class time, cell phones to keep in

contact with friends, a tablet to do schoolwork in the evening,

and then watch an hour of television with their families to

unwind. This can add up to many hours over the course of the

day, although the majority of 12-15s in the United Kingdom

believe they have managed to strike a balance between using

screens and doing other things (Ofcom, 2019).

Spotlight on the “Goldilocks eﬀect”

Is there a “right” amount of technology use? The “Goldilocks Eﬀect” argues that moderate engagement

in online and digital activities is beneﬁcial in terms of subjective mental well-being and adolescent

connectedness, whereas too much or too little might prove detrimental (Przybylski and Weinstein, 2017).

So how much is too much? The threshold varies and will depend on the individual activity and child. In

2015, 16% of 15 year-olds among OECD countries reported that they spent more than 6 hours on line per

day outside school during weekdays, and 26% during weekends. These “extreme Internet users” reported

less life satisfaction and were more likely to be bullied at school (OECD, 2017). Moreover, “extreme Internet

users” performed worse across all subjects in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA),

even after accounting for diﬀerences in socio-economic background.

Mental well-being as a function of screen

time

Mental well-being

Daily digital-screen engagement (hours)

Mental well-being weekday

Source: Adapted from Przybylski & Weinstein, 2017.

Mental well-being weekend

Note: Screen use of computers shown. The pattern is consistent also for watching TV, gaming and streaming.

BUU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 239: Spm. om relevante forskningspublikationer angående Esport, Gaming, Didaktik og undervisning, til børne- og undervisningsministeren

WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT CHILDREN AND TECHNOLOGY?

Figure 2. Life satisfaction of extreme Internet users

Average life satisfaction, by time spent on the Internet outside of school during weekend days

Extreme Internet users

Other Internet users (Low+Moderate+High)

Percentage of extreme Internet users

Dominican Republic

Mexico

15%

Costa Rica

Croatia

Netherlands 18%

Colombia

Uruguay

Lithuania

Thailand

Finland

12%

France

12%

Switzerland 12%

Russia

Brazil

Bulgaria

Peru

Spain 22%

Chile

32%

Portugal

15%

Slovak Republic

19%

Iceland

12%

Luxembourg 18%

Austria 17%

Belgium (excl. Flemish) 15%

Estonia

18%

OECD average

16%

Latvia

15%

Poland

15%

Hungary

21%

Czech Republic

17%

Ireland

14%

B-S-J-G (China) 4%

Slovenia

11%

Italy

23%

Greece 11%

United Kingdom 24%

Japan

Macao (China) 12%

Chinese Taipei

14%

Korea

Hong Kong (China) 12%

6.00

6.50

7.00

7.50

8.00

8.50

9.00

Average life satisfaction

Notes: Categories of Internet users are based on students' responses to questions about how much time they spend on line, outside of school, during a typical weekend day.

Low Internet users: one hour or less; moderate Internet users: 1 to 2 hours; high Internet users: 2 to 6 hours; extreme Internet users: more than 6 hours.

Statistically signiﬁcant diﬀerences in life satisfaction between extreme Internet users and other Internet users are shown next to the country/economy name (see Annex A3

in OECD [2017]).

Countries and economies are ranked in descending order of the average life satisfaction of extreme Internet users.

Source: OECD, PISA 2015 Database, Table III.13.23.

BUU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 239: Spm. om relevante forskningspublikationer angående Esport, Gaming, Didaktik og undervisning, til børne- og undervisningsministeren

WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT CHILDREN AND TECHNOLOGY?

Highlights of Research on...

Television

There is a larger research base on television and children

than most other types of technology; in part, this is because

television has been around for a long time. However the

research is contradictory and there is no clear impact (either

positive or negative) of moderate television viewing (Foster

and Watkins, 2010). The two most important elements appear

to be the quality of the programming, and whether or not

the child is interpreting it with a parent or other responsible

viewer.

A systematic review of the literature exploring the association

between television viewing and outcomes such as academic

performance, language and play suggests that watching

high-quality content is associated with higher academic

skills and is predictive of future academic performance,

whereas watching television during infancy and engaging

with inappropriate content was associated with negative

outcomes (Kostyrka-Allchorne, Cooper and Simpson, 2017).

These findings underline the concern about equity and

context as children from disadvantaged backgrounds tend

to watch more television than children from advantaged

backgrounds (Certain and Kahn, 2002; Rideout and Hamel,

2006).

In sum, there may be some beneﬁts associated with engaging

with child-tailored, educational content in terms of improved

verbal abilities, cognitive development and neural maturity

in children. However, the research also points to children

learning better from live sources than from videos, despite

the potential mitigation of this deficit by using socially

meaningful or familiar onscreen characters.

The importance of co-viewing

“Co-viewing” (when parents watch videos with children) allows children to potentially increase their ability

to learn from video content (see Gottschalk, 2019, for an overview). When parents pose questions and give

descriptions and labels during viewing, this helps their children pay more attention (Barr et al., 2008).

But the extent of the cognitive outcomes associated with co-viewing is unclear and it might also be

that simply engaging in behaviours (screen-based or not) with a caregiver may be beneﬁcial for child

development (Lee, Spence and Carson, 2017).

A warning: Co-viewing may inadvertently be increasing the divide between advantaged and disadvantaged

families. Children whose parents are able to spend time curating and mentoring screen time may reap

more beneﬁts than those in families with less ﬁnancial resources and with parents who are less able to be

involved in daily activities (Canadian Paediatric Society, 2017). It is thus important to encourage all parents

to talk to their children about what they are watching. For children with parents whose schedule gives them

less time to spend together, co-viewing perhaps can be incorporated into other health and development-

promoting habits, even for infants and young children.

BUU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 239: Spm. om relevante forskningspublikationer angående Esport, Gaming, Didaktik og undervisning, til børne- og undervisningsministeren

WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT CHILDREN AND TECHNOLOGY?

Video games

The literature on video gaming and children is much more

recent than that on television. The majority of the research

that exists focuses on negative rather than positive outcomes

(Granic, Lobel and Engels, 2013). Providing a coherent and

balanced evidence base is important, especially as online

gaming is becoming increasingly popular; of children aged

5-15 in the United Kingdom who play games, three quarters

do so on line (Ofcom, 2019).

Parents and educators often worry about the impact of

gaming on educational attainment; but as with “educational

television”, “educational gaming” might have positive eﬀects

on children. In general, however, there is a lack of strong

evidence and the literature in this domain is contradictory.

Active video games

Video games have undergone a shift. Where we once had only sedentary, controller-based games, we now

have options to engage in active video games, which require players to engage in physical movements in

order to interact with the screen-based game and can elicit light, or even moderate activity (Norris, Hamer

and Stamatakis, 2016).

Augmented reality games, or those that involve geotracking (or in the case of Pokémon GO, a game that

uses both) are also becoming increasingly popular and are argued to promote movement. However, the

evidence on whether these can be used to enhance physical ﬁtness or promote well-being is mixed.

A systematic review of the literature on active video games as health interventions within schools found

that the research was not of a high enough quality, and recommended that randomised controlled trials

with larger sample sizes be conducted in order for these to be used as health interventions (Norris, Hamer

and Stamatakis, 2016). In contrast, a meta-analysis including 35 articles on active video games concluded

that these games can be a good alternative to sedentary behaviour, although they are not replacements for

more traditional sports and physical activity in children and adolescents. The eﬀect sizes (i.e. the size of the

diﬀerence in outcomes between those who played the video games and those who did not) in most of these

studies ranged from small to null (Gao et al., 2015). This highlights an important problem in this ﬁeld; eﬀect

sizes are often small or even negligible.

Source: Gottschalk, 2019

Social media & communication

Since 1997, over 10 000 published journal articles have

used the term “social media”, with experts in ﬁelds such as

psychology, economics and sociology incorporating this topic

into their research agendas (Meshi, Tamir and Heekeren,

2015). This is for a good reason: in the UK about 70% of

kids aged 12-15 have a social media proﬁle (Ofcom, 2019).

In the US approximately 97% of 13-17 year-olds use at least

one social media platform (Ancerson and Jiang, 2018)

Similar to the “Goldilocks Hypothesis” for screen use, there

is evidence to suggest that children’s social relationships can

be stimulated through digital technology and that moderate

online communication has a positive relationship with the

quality of friendship and social capital (for a review, see

(Kardefelt-Winther, 2017)).

Despite the proliferation of research exploring social media

use and the huge numbers of children subscribing to these

platforms, empirical research on the impacts of social

media on the brain is scarce. In 2015, only seven published

articles explored neurosciences and social media (Meshi,

Tamir and Heekeren, 2015). Furthermore, most studies focus

on Facebook use, which is not as popular as other social

media used by 21st-century children, such as Snapchat and

Instagram.

Despite the diﬃculty in conducting research on rapidly

changing technology, it is important to study this further.

Internalising behaviours such as anxiety and depression have

risen in recent years in children and adolescents (Choi, 2018);

social media often takes the blame for being one of the root

causes of this trend.

Being connected to their online communities is important for

children and adolescents. Half of the students who took the

2015 PISA assessment agreed with the statement “I feel bad

when I am not on line”. In European countries, disadvantaged

students were more likely to report that they felt bad without

available Internet connection, compared to advantaged

students, and girls were more likely to report feeling bad

when unconnected than boys (OECD, 2017).

There is some research to suggest that social media use,

especially at night, might be linked to outcomes such as

poor sleep quality. But relationships between screen use

and levels of anxiety and depression tend to be small, and

do not show the direction of the link (that is, levels of anxiety

and depression could be causing more social media use, or

vice versa) (OECD, 2018).

BUU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 239: Spm. om relevante forskningspublikationer angående Esport, Gaming, Didaktik og undervisning, til børne- og undervisningsministeren

WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT CHILDREN AND TECHNOLOGY?

Figure 3. Feeling bad if not connected to the Internet, by gender

Percentage of students who reported "agree" or "strongly agree"

Boys feeling bad if not connected

Girls feeling bad if not connected

Chinese Taipei -2

Sweden -9

France -5

Portugal

Greece

Singapore -2

Thailand

Macao (China) -7

Brazil -2

Spain

United Kingdom

Bulgaria

Hong Kong (China)

Korea -7

Belgium -4

Denmark -4

Croatia

-5

Israel -10

New Zealand -4

Netherlands -3

Uruguay

Hungary

Australia

OECD average -3

Dominican Republic

Ireland -7

Poland -3

Costa Rica

Lithuania

Japan -5

Mexico

Russia -8

Czech Republic

Italy

Peru

Colombia

Finland -6

Chile

Latvia

Slovak Republic

B-S-J-G (China) 11

Switzerland

Austria -3

Luxembourg

Iceland

Germany

Estonia

Slovenia

Note: Statistically signiﬁcant diﬀerences between boys and girls are shown next to country/economy name (see Annex A3).

Countries and economies are ranked in descending order of the percentage of girls who feel bad if there is no Internet connection available.

Source: OECD (2017), Table III.13.16.

Controversial diagnoses: Social media, gaming and “addiction”

Policymakers, parents and the media are consistently reporting concerns about gaming and addiction.

“Internet Gaming Disorder” (IGD) was recently included in the Appendix of the Diagnostic and Statistical

Manual of Mental Disorders-V (DSM-V) and as “Gaming disorder” in the draft of the 11th revision of the

World Health Organization’s International Classiﬁcation of Diseases (ICD-11).

However, these additions are controversial [i.e. (Starcevic, 2017; Aarseth et al., 2017; Király and

Demetrovics, 2017; van Rooij et al., 2018; Rumpf et al., 2018)], and the formal classiﬁcation as a “disorder”

is contentious in the scientiﬁc community (Turel et al., 2014). Some researchers prefer to use terms such as

‘excessive Internet use’ to avoid using medical classiﬁcation or terminology (Smahel et al., 2012, Kardefelt-

Winther, 2017). “Problematic” or “excessive” use of technology is determined by whether the use interferes

with normal daily functions and is diﬃcult to control, rather than based on the absolute quantity of

exposure (Howard-Jones, 2011).

“Facebook addiction” is another term that has gained traction in recent years, and as with “gaming

addiction” this label is contentious.

Even though more children are using social media than ever before, research on the eﬀects of that activity

on developing brains is still in its infancy. The use of social media has been connected to facial recognition

and memory, which could prove beneﬁcial in establishing and maintaining strong social networks both on

line and oﬀ, in adolescence and later in life. However, directional causality cannot be inferred, and often the

functional relevance of certain brain phenomena is unclear.

As this is a fast-moving area, the importance of using rigorous research is more necessary than ever (OECD,

2018 ). At present, there appears to be a disconnect between the available evidence, media and public

perception. Claims that “smartphones have ruined a generation” are largely unfounded. However, it is clear

that this is an area of study that will need constant updating and reﬁnement as technology evolves.

BUU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 239: Spm. om relevante forskningspublikationer angående Esport, Gaming, Didaktik og undervisning, til børne- og undervisningsministeren

Implications for physical health: frequently asked questions

Does screen time impact children’s sleep?

Many devices today emit short wavelength or blue light, which

has an eﬀect on natural sleep and wake cycles. As computers,

cell phones and tablets have evolved over time to have larger

and brighter screens, using one of these self-luminous devices

in the evening has been associated with reduced melatonin, a

hormone that helps signal sleep to the body.

A systematic review of the literature examining sleep patterns

among school-aged children and adolescents found that the

vast majority of the studies showed negative associations

between screen time and sleep outcomes, such as delayed

timing and shortened duration of sleep (Hale and Guan, 2015),

although this reduction might be as small as 3-8 minutes per

hour devoted to screen time (Przybylski, 2019). However,

association, or correlation, does not imply causality, and it is

hard to accurately measure sleep and screen time.

Still, it seems clear that establishing limits on when children

and adolescents use technology (e.g. not in the hours

immediately preceding bedtime), or providing children with

protective equipment, such as blue light-blocking glasses,

may help prevent sleep disruptions.

More research is needed to identify whether activating

features on mobile devices, such as “night shift” or “night

mode”, are eﬀective in avoiding disruption of melatonin

production. These steps could be incorporated into good

sleep-hygiene practices, which include avoiding excess (or

any) caﬀeine, engaging in regular exercise, maintaining a

regular sleep schedule, and eliminating light and noise from

the sleeping environment (Stepanski and Wyatt, 2003).

the feeling of fullness. It can also obscure signals of satiety

from foods that have been previously consumed (i.e. children

do not stop eating, even though they are already full)

(Bellissimo et al., 2007).

This can be partially mitigated by parents and caregivers

limiting snacks in the home, providing children with healthy

foods to snack on while watching television or playing video

games, and making meal times screen-free.

Isn’t screen time taking time away from children

socialising, playing and doing sports?

Some literature points to the notion of a “displacement

eﬀect”, whereby time spent using technology takes away

from other potentially more “valuable” activities (Neuman,

1988). However, a recent review of the literature suggests

that reducing screen time may not motivate adolescents

and children to engage more in physical activity (Kardefelt-

Winther, 2017); other research has shown that screen-based,

sedentary behaviour and leisure-time physical activity are

independent of one another (Gebremariam et al., 2013).

Television watching may displace other activities, such as

reading, but the overall evidence of the negative impact of

displacement is relatively weak (Evans Schmidt and Anderson,

2009). While screens do not speciﬁcally cause myopia (short-

sightedness), too much time spent indoors is associated with

its onset (Dolgin, 2015). Parents and teachers should thus

ensure that screen time does not take away from time spent

outdoors.

Displacement eﬀects can diﬀer based on the extent of screen

time and the activities being displaced. For example, heavy

Internet use may interfere with participation in clubs and

sports, whereas moderate use has been shown to encourage

participation (Romer, Bagdasarov and More, 2013). This is a

relatively consistent ﬁnding across the research: moderate

Internet use, and shared media experiences, allow young

people to build rapport with their peers (Romer, Bagdasarov

and More, 2013; Romer, Jamieson and Pasek, 2009).

What’s the link between obesity and screens?

Over recent decades, increases in time spent watching

television and using the computer have raised concerns

about obesity in children. Eating while watching television,

for example, has been associated with an increase in energy

intake (i.e. more calories or food eaten) because it can delay

BUU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 239: Spm. om relevante forskningspublikationer angående Esport, Gaming, Didaktik og undervisning, til børne- og undervisningsministeren

WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT CHILDREN AND TECHNOLOGY?

What can schools do? The role of education in fostering

safe, responsible Internet use

Schools and education systems play a key role in supporting

safe and responsible Internet use. The challenge for schools

lies in their ability to reduce the negative uses of the Internet

and digital devices while maintaining their contributions to

teaching, learning and social connection. In order to do

this, children should be taught how to manage risks on

line. Schools and education systems can adopt some of the

following approaches to support students in their digital use

(for the full discussion see Hooft-Graaﬂand, 2018).

Incorporate e-safety in the curriculum

Including online safety in the school’s curriculum helps

children become safe and responsible users of technologies

(Hinduja and Patchin, 2018), with peer-support programmes

and mentoring schemes seen as eﬀective in enhancing online

safety. But e-safety is not isolated from the rest of learning.

There is a growing belief that schools should teach digital

citizenship as part of digital literacy, to help children engage in

more positive online behaviour. This includes online etiquette

and behaviour as well as on harm reduction strategies that

teach children about empathy and privacy (see Hooft-

Graaﬂand, 2018).

Adopt a whole-school approach to resolving online

safety issues

When teachers and support staﬀ can recognise, respond to

and resolve online safety issues, this is eﬀective in protecting

and supporting students on line. Staﬀ and teachers therefore

need regular training in online risks and their implications.

Parents and students can be involved to strengthen their own

capacity in dealing with online issues. And don’t forget the

connection to the physical world: online safety also means

putting screens away while crossing roads and walking!

Strengthen family-school partnerships

Online safety must continue at home. As younger children go

on line and children increasingly use technology out of school

environments, parents and caregivers play a more important

role in educating children about technology (Duerager and

Livingstone, 2012). Parents and caregivers thus need to know

about adaptive ways of responding to safety incidents with

children, and how best they can eﬀectively mediate their

child’s exposure to online risks.

Furthermore, technology can be an important tool in parent-

teacher communication, informing parents about their

children’s time at school and including them in activities

and discussion.

Develop and enact online safety policies and procedures

Eﬀective policies and procedures promote responsible and

safe online practice for students and staﬀ. Good policies

will support students’ online learning, without preventing or

overly limiting online access, and should be integrated with

safeguarding policies such as those on cyberbullying and

online behaviour. Talking to children about their experiences

and engaging them in the development of online safety

policies is important, as children often know best what new

risks they might encounter on line.

Harness the power of peers

Besides seeking help from parents and teachers, children and

especially adolescents turn to each other when they need

support. They also learn about new opportunities on line

mainly through their peers: Peer mediation can positively

aﬀect children’s digital literacy and the type of activities

they engage in on line. It is thus important to foster an open

culture of e-safety in schools so that peers can also provide

helpful advice and access to resources.

Establish coherent (cyber)bullying policies

Policies targeting cyberbullying should be incorporated into

the context of traditional bullying. Given the strong correlation

between the two, successful bullying interventions may also

reduce cyberbullying (Livingstone, Stoilova and Kelly, 2016).

Eﬀective policies for bullying clearly describe what behaviour

is and is not accepted on line and at school, and what the

consequences are for violating these rules (StopBullying,

2017).

BUU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 239: Spm. om relevante forskningspublikationer angående Esport, Gaming, Didaktik og undervisning, til børne- og undervisningsministeren

Making e-safety work

Even though children often seem to understand technology

better than adults do, they need guidance on how to use

technology in a responsible and positive way. The following

set of messages are important to consider when developing

school policies:

•

Adults who understand online safety and are able to

use technology are more successful in guiding children’s

digital use. Therefore, it is crucial that parents and

teachers receive information on online safety, and advice

on how to help children manage online risks (Livingstone,

Davidson and Bryce, 2017).

Take a look in the mirror: teachers and parents need

to be mindful of their own online behaviour and what

they are modelling for the youth around them. Parents

(and grandparents) should never assume that children

are happy to have their images and news about their

lives shared on line without their permission.

Children and adolescents need to be stimulated

to become content creators and not just receivers

(Livingstone, Davidson and Bryce, 2017). Most students

still use the Internet for ready-made, mass-produced

content, such as watching online video clips or listening

to music.

•

The second digital divide is real: students from more

advantaged backgrounds tend to have higher digital

skills. Special eﬀorts should be made to overcome these

inequalities and ensure that disadvantaged children

receive the support and guidance they need to succeed

in a digital world (Hatlevik, Gudðmundsdóttir and Loi,

2015).

•

One last note: Policy solutions should be based on robust

evidence. The speed of change of technology means that

research on the impact of technology on children is more,

not less, important. Although seemingly self-evident, fears

that technology is harmful for children have resulted in a

disconnect between the policy, public discourse and the

body of evidence. This topic will need constant updating

and reﬁnement as technology and its uses evolve.

The OECD’s Directorate for Science, Technology and

Industry is currently revisiting and updating the OECD

(2012),

Recommendation of the Council on the Protection of

Children Online.

The Recommendation includes principles

for all stakeholders involved in making the Internet a safer

environment for children and educating them to become

responsible digital citizens. The conclusions of this process

will be available in the coming months.

•

BUU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 239: Spm. om relevante forskningspublikationer angående Esport, Gaming, Didaktik og undervisning, til børne- og undervisningsministeren

WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT CHILDREN AND TECHNOLOGY?

References

Aarseth, E. et al.

(2017), “Scholars’ open debate paper on the World Health Organization ICD-11 Gaming Disorder proposal”,

Journal of

/dx.doi.org/10.1556/2006.5.2016.088.

Behavioral Addictions,

Vol. 6/3, p. 267-270,

http:/

Barr, R. et al.

(2008), “Infants' attention and responsiveness to television increases with prior exposure and parental interaction”,

/dx.doi.org/10.1080/15250000701779378.

Infancy,

Vol. 13/1, p. 30-56,

http:/

Bavelier, D., C. Green and M. Dye

(2010), “Children, wired: For better and for worse”,

Neuron,

Vol. 67/5, p. 692-701,

http:/

/dx.doi.

org/10.1016/J.NEURON.2010.08.035.

Bellissimo, N. et al.

(2007), “Eﬀect of television viewing at mealtime on food intake after a glucose preload in boys”,

Pediatric Research,

http:/

/dx.doi.org/10.1203/pdr.0b013e3180536591.

Canadian Paediatric Society

(2017), “Screen time and young children: Promoting health and development in a digital world”,

Paediatrics

/dx.doi.org/10.1093/pch/pxx123.

& Child Health,

p. 461-468,

http:/

Center on the Developing Child

(2009),

Five Numbers to Remember About Early Childhood Development

(Brief),

http:/

/www.developingchild.harvard.edu.

Certain, L. and R. Kahn

(2002), “Prevalence, correlates, and trajectory of television viewing among infants and toddlers.”,

Pediatrics,

/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11927708.

Vol. 109/4, p. 634-42,

http:/

Choi, A.

(2018), “Emotional well-being of children and adolescents: Recent trends and relevant factors”, OECD

Education Working

Papers,

No. 169, OECD Publishing, Paris,

http:/

/dx.doi.org/10.1787/41576fb2-en.

Crone, E. and E. Konijn

(2018), “Media use and brain development during adolescence”,

Nature Communications,

Vol. 9/1, p. 588,

http:/

/dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-03126-x.

Dolgin, E.

(2015), “The myopia boom",

Nature,

Vol 513/7543, p. 276-278.

Duerager, A. and S. Livingstone

(2012),

How can parents support children's internet safety?,

EU Kids Online,

http:/

/www.lse.ac.uk/

media%40lse/research/EUKidsOnline/EU%20Kids%20III/Reports/ParentalMediation.pdf.

Evans Schmidt, M. and D. Anderson

(2009), “The impact of television on cognitive development and educational achievement”, in

Pecora, N., J. Murray and E. Wartella (eds.),

Children and Television: Fifty Years of Research,

Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.

Foster, E. and S. Watkins

(2010), “The value of reanalysis: TV viewing and attention problems”,

Child Development,

Vol. 81/1,

/dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01400.x.

p. 368-375,

http:/

Gao, Z. et al.

(2015), “A meta-analysis of active video games on health outcomes among children and adolescents”,

Obesity Reviews,

Vol. 16/9, p. 783-794,

http:/

/dx.doi.org/10.1111/obr.12287.

Gebremariam, M. et al.

(2013), “Are screen-based sedentary behaviors longitudinally associated with dietary behaviors and leisure-

/dx.doi.

time physical activity in the transition into adolescence?”,

International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition,

Vol. 10/9,

http:/

org/10.1186/1479-5868-10-9.

Gottschalk, F.

(2019), “Impacts of technology use on children: Exploring literature on the brain, cognition and well-being”,

OECD

/dx.doi.org/10.1787/8296464e-en.

Education Working Papers,

No. 195, OECD Publishing, Paris,

http:/

Granic, I., A. Lobel and R. Engels

(2013), “The beneﬁts of playing video games”,

American Psychologist,

Vol. 69/1, p. 66-78,

http:/

/dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0034857.

Hale, L. and S. Guan

(2015), “Screen time and sleep among school-aged children and adolescents: A systematic literature review”,

Sleep

Medicine Reviews,

Vol. 21, p. 50-58,

http:/

/dx.doi.org/10.1016/J.SMRV.2014.07.007.

Hatlevik, O., G. Gudðmundsdóttir and M. Loi

(2015), “Digital diversity among upper secondary students: A multilevel analysis of the

relationship between cultural capital, self-eﬃcacy, strategic use of information and digital comptence”,

Computers and Education,

/dx.doi.org/10.1016/J.COMPEDU.2014.10.019,

pp. 345-353.

Vol. 81,

http:/

Hinduja, S. and J. Patchin

(2018),

Cyberbullying fact sheet: Identiﬁcation, Prevention, and Response,

Cyberbullying Research Center,

https:/

/cyberbullying.org/Cyberbullying-Identiﬁcation-Prevention-Response-2018.pdf.

Hooft Graaﬂand, J.

(2018), “New technologies and 21st century children: Recent trends and outcomes”,

OECD Education Working

/dx.doi.org/10.1787/e071a505-en.

Papers,

No. 179, OECD Publishing, Paris,

http:/

Hopkins, L., F. Brookes and J. Green

(2013), “Books, bytes and brains: The implications of new knowledge for children's

early literacy learning”,

Australasian Journal of Early Childhood,

Vol. 38/1, p. 23-28,

https:/

/search.informit.com.au/

documentSummary;dn=266659007690976;res=IELHSS.

BUU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 239: Spm. om relevante forskningspublikationer angående Esport, Gaming, Didaktik og undervisning, til børne- og undervisningsministeren

WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT CHILDREN AND TECHNOLOGY?

Howard-Jones, P.

(2011), “The impact of digital technologies on human wellbeing: Evidence from the sciences of mind and brain”,

Nominet Trust, Oxford, England.

Kardefelt-Winther, D.

(2017), “How does the time children spend using digital technology impact their mental well-being, social

relationships and physical activity? An evidence focused literature review”,

Innocenti Discussion Paper 2017-02,

UNICEF Oﬃce of

Research – Innocenti, Florence,

https:/

/www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/Children-digitaltechnology-wellbeing.pdf.

Király, O. and Z. Demetrovics

(2017), “Inclusion of gaming disorder in ICD has more advantages than disadvantages”,

Journal of

/dx.doi.org/10.1556/2006.6.2017.046.

Behavioral Addictions,

Vol. 6/3, p. 280-284,

http:/

Kostyrka-Allchorne, K., N. Cooper and A. Simpson

(2017), "The relationship between television exposure and children's cognition and

/dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2016.12.002.

behaviour: A systematic review",

Developmental Review,

No. 44, p.19-58,

http:/

Lee, E., J. Spence and V. Carson

(2017), “Television viewing, reading, physical activity and brain development among young South

/dx.doi.org/10.1016/J.JSAMS.2016.11.014.

Korean children”, Journal

of Science and Medicine in Sport,

Vol. 20/7, p. 672-677,

http:/

Livingstone, S., M. Stoilova and A. Kelly

(2016), “Cyberbullying: incidence, trends and consequence”, in

Ending the Torment: Tackling

Bullying from the Schoolyard to Cyberspace,

United Nations Oﬃce of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Violence

against Children, New York,

http:/

/eprints.lse.ac.uk/68079/.

Livingstone, S., J. Davidson and J. Bryce

(2017),

Children's Online Activities, Risks and Safety: A Literature Review by the UKCCIS Evidence

/assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/

Group,

UK Council for Children Internet Safety, London,

https:/

attachment_data/ﬁle/650933/Literature_Review_Final_October_2017.pdf.

Meshi, D., D. Tamir and H. Heekeren

(2015), “The emerging neuroscience of social media”,

Trends in Cognitive Sciences,

Vol. 19,

/dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2015.09.004.

p. 771-782,

http:/

Mills, K.

(2014), “Eﬀects of Internet use on the adolescent brain: Despite popular claims, experimental evidence remains scarce”,

Trends

/dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2014.04.011.

in Cognitive Sciences,

Vol. 18/8, p. 385-387,

http:/

Neuman, S.

(1988), “The displacement eﬀect: Assessing the relation between television viewing and reading performance”, Reading

Research Quarterly,

Vol. 23/4, p. 414,

http:/

/dx.doi.org/10.2307/747641.

Norris, E., M. Hamer and E. Stamatakis

(2016), “Active video games in schools and eﬀects on physical activity and health: A systematic

/dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2016.02.001.

review”,

The Journal of Pediatrics,

Vol. 172, p. 40-46,

http:/

OECD

(2012),

Recommendation of the Council on the Protection of Children Online,

https:/

/legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/

OECD-LEGAL-0389.

OECD

(2017),

PISA 2015 Results (Volume III): Students' Well-Being,

PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris,

http:/

/dx.doi.

org/10.1787/9789264273856-en.

OECD

(2018 ), “Children & young people’s mental health in the digital age: Shaping the future”,

ELS Policy Brief,

OECD, Paris,

http:/

/www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/Children-and-Young-People-Mental-Health-in-the-Digital-Age.pdf.

OECD

(2019),

Trends Shaping Education 2019,

OECD Publishing, Paris,

https:/

/doi.org/10.1787/trends_edu-2019-en.

Ofcom

(2019),

Children and Parents: Media Use and Attitudes Report 2018,

https:/

/www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_

ﬁle/0024/134907/Children-and-Parents-Media-Use-and-Attitudes-2018.pdf.

Orben, A. and A. K. Przybylski

(2019), "The association between adolescent well-being and digital technology use",

Nature Human

Behaviour,

Vol. 3, p. 173–182.

Przybylski, A.K

(2019), "Digital screen time and pediatric sleep: Evidence from a preregistered cohort study",

The Journal of Pediatrics,

/doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2018.09.054.

Vol. 205/1, p. 218-223,

https:/

Przybylski, A. K. and N. Weinstein

(2017), “A large-scale test of the Goldilocks hypothesis”,

Psychological Science,

Vol. 28/2, p. 204-215,

http:/

/dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797616678438.

Rideout, V. and E. Hamel

(2006),

The Media Family: Electronic Media in the Lives of infants, Toddlers, Preschoolers and their Parents,

Henry

J. Kaiser Family Foundation, Menlo Park, CA.

Romer, D., Z. Bagdasarov and E. More

(2013), “Older versus newer media and the well-being of United States youth: Results from a

national longitudinal panel”, Journal

of Adolescent Health,

Vol. 52, p. 613-619,

http:/

/dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2012.11.012.

Romer, D., K. Jamieson and J. Pasek

(2009), “Building social capital in young people: The role of mass media and life outlook”,

Political

/dx.doi.org/10.1080/10584600802622878.

Communication,

Vol. 26/1, p. 65-83,

http:/

Rumpf, H. et al.

(2018), “Including gaming disorder in the ICD-11: The need to do so from a clinical and public health perspective”,

/dx.doi.org/10.1556/2006.7.2018.59.

Journal of Behavioral Addictions,

Vol. 7/3, p. 556-561,

http:/

BUU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 239: Spm. om relevante forskningspublikationer angående Esport, Gaming, Didaktik og undervisning, til børne- og undervisningsministeren

WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT CHILDREN AND TECHNOLOGY?

Smahel, D. et al.

(2012),

Excessive internet use among European children Report Original citation: Excessive Internet Use among European

/eprints.lse.ac.uk/47344/1/Excessive%20internet%20

Children,

EU Kids Online, London School of Economics & Political Science,

http:/

use.pdf.

Starcevic, V.

(2017), “Internet gaming disorder: Inadequate diagnostic criteria wrapped in a constraining conceptual model”,

Journal of

behavioral addictions,

Vol. 6/2, p. 110-113,

http:/

/dx.doi.org/10.1556/2006.6.2017.012.

Stepanski, E. and J. Wyatt

(2003), “Use of sleep hygiene in the treatment of insomnia”,

Sleep Medicine Reviews,

Vol. 7/3, p. 215-225,

http:/

/dx.doi.org/10.1053/smrv.2001.0246.

StopBullying

(2017), "Set Policies & Rules",

https:/

/www.stopbullying.gov/prevention/at-school/rules/index.html.

Turel, O. et al.

(2014), “Examination of neural systems sub-serving Facebook 'addiction'",

Psychological Reports: Disability & Trauma,

/dx.doi.org/10.2466/18.PR0.115c31z8.

Vol. 115, p. 675-695,

http:/

van Rooij, A. et al.

(2018), “A weak scientiﬁc basis for gaming disorder: Let us err on the side of caution”,

Journal of Behavioral Addictions,

/dx.doi.org/10.1556/2006.7.2018.19.

Vol. 7/1, p. 1-9,

http:/

Viner, R., M. Davie and A. Firth

(2019), The

Health Impacts of Screen Time: A Guide for Clinicians and Parents,

RCPCH, London,

https:/

/www.rcpch.ac.uk/sites/default/ﬁles/2018-12/rcpch_screen_time_guide_-_ﬁnal.pdf.

BUU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 239: Spm. om relevante forskningspublikationer angående Esport, Gaming, Didaktik og undervisning, til børne- og undervisningsministeren

This work is published under the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. The opinions expressed and arguments

employed herein do not necessarily reﬂect the oﬃcial views of the member countries of the OECD.

This document, as well as any data and map included herein, are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any

territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area.

The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The use of such data

by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the West Bank

under the terms of international law.

Photo credis inside: © Shutterstock / Veja; © Shutterstock / Alinute Silzeviciute; © Shutterstock / Monkey Business Images;

You can copy, download or print OECD content for your own use, and you can include excerpts from OECD publications,

databases and multimedia products in your own documents, presentations, blogs, websites and teaching materials, provided

that suitable acknowledgment of OECD as source and copyright owner is given. All requests for commercial use and translation

rights should be submitted to

[email protected].

BUU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 239: Spm. om relevante forskningspublikationer angående Esport, Gaming, Didaktik og undervisning, til børne- og undervisningsministeren BUU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 239: Spm. om relevante forskningspublikationer angående Esport, Gaming, Didaktik og undervisning, til børne- og undervisningsministeren