Growing Up Wired: Raising Kids in the Digital Age

Growing Up Wired

Raising Pinoy Kids in the Digital Age

QUEENA N. LEE-CHUA, PHD

MA. ISABEL SISON-DIONISIO, MA

NERISA C. FERNANDEZ

MICHELE S. ALIGNAY, MA

Growing Up Wired

Raising Pinoy Kids in the Digital Age

Copyright to this digital edition © 2013 by

Queena N. Lee-Chua

Ma. Isabel Sison-Dionisio

Nerisa C. Fernandez

Michele S. Alignay

Anvil Publishing, Inc.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any

form or by any means without the written permission of the copyright

owners.

Published and exclusively distributed by

ANVIL PUBLISHING, INC.

7th Floor Quad Alpha Centrum Building

125 Pioneer Street, Mandaluyong City

1550 Philippines

Sales and Marketing: marketing@anvilpublishing.com

www.anvilpublishing.com

First printing, November 2013

Book design by Ray Sunga (cover); Joshene Bersales (interior); Rachelle

O. Santos (illustrations)

ISBN 9788712729249 (e-book)

Version 1.0.1

Contents

Acknowledgments

THANK YOU, Ateneo de Manila University chemistry professor Christopher Peabody, for journeying half of the way with us. Chris collated the survey results, led focus groups, and shared his teaching experiences.

Thank you, Ateneo de Manila High School. The project started under the leadership of former principal Raymund-Benedict Q. Hizon, SJ (now at Ateneo de Naga). The current A-team, headed by principal Gabriel F. Mallillin, ensured that the survey reach as many students as possible. Our gratitude to Maria Jennifer A. Concepcion (Associate Principal for Academic Affairs), Jessel Gerard M. Gonzales, SJ (Associate Principal for Formation), and Ronan B. Capinding (Associate Principal for Student Affairs). Thank you, Ferdinand Francis V. Verayo (guidance counsellor), for choosing the student participants for the focus groups. Thank you, Ma. Monette C. Dator (arts/media teacher) for joining us in sharing insights with the high school community.

Thank you, Alberto V. Ampil, SJ (Director for Parent Relations and Programs), particularly for the inspirational opening prayer during the parent media seminar. Thank you, Alma Renee R. Pavia (Assistant to the Director) for organizing, and Ateneo parent Mary Rose Fres Fausto, for emceeing the affair. Thank you, Ateneo High School Parents Union for School and Home (PUSH) chair Dr. Manuel Delfin and wife Anna Maria, former chairs Dada Lorenzana-Santiago and Cecile Serrano, past and present parents Larry Azura, Chari Reyes, Gene Jacinto, Jean Montinola, Mita Adre, Miej de Dios, Hanna Gonzales, Portia Santos, Rowen de Jesus, Rox Sevilla, Letlet Cepeda. PUSH has supported the project since its inception, and provided valuable input for the pilot version of the survey.

Thank you, Ateneo parents Ma. Teresa Aguirre, Lourdes Ozaeta, Mary Ann Santiago, Vicky Tantoco, and Yvonne Luna, for sharing your experiences with us.

Thank you, Miriam College High School (MCHS). The project started under the leadership of former principal Ma. Corazon R. Reyes (now Director for Basic Education), and achieved full force with the help of dynamic principal Edizon E. Fermin and his team. Our thanks to Reina M. Rama (Assistant Principal for Academic Affairs), Nancy C. Roman (Assistant Principal for Student Affairs), Jeanilyn S. Guarnes (Guidance, Testing and Research Center Supervisor).

Thank you, MCHS parent discussants: Parent Teacher Council executive board members Jocelyn U. Garcia (president), Elaine Morales, Leslie Charmaine Salazar, Jocelyn U. Garcia, Peachy de Leon, Pinky Ocampo. Thank you, Anna Lourdes D. G. Aseron, Maria Anna G. Alvaran, Marilet D. Anastacio, Jane Grace R. Villaseñor, Aiza Caparras-Tabayoyong, Myla L. Tolentino, for helping us during the focus groups discussions.

Thank you, Eden Acosta, for helping us in data gathering and introducing us to more Ateneo and Miriam parents who are willing to share their stories about gadget use.

Thank you, Margarita A. Acosta (chair, Department of Communications) and Victoria Apuan (chair, Family Studies/Social Sciences Department), for not only inspiring Ichel in her graduate studies, but for also sharing your time and wisdom with us.

Thank you, Milen Aviles, Rowena Juan Matti and Rosario T. Juan, Charlene C. Rodriguez, Marie and Anabelle (you know who you are), for opening up about your reflections and experiences.

Thank you, Colegio Sto. Domingo. Fe L. de Guzman (president), Karla Ma. U. de Guzman (Director for Early Childhood Education), teachers Glenna Marie Gatapia and Lynette del Castillo for sharing your experiences with preschool and primary school students.

Thank you, Xavier School. The NExT office started under the administration of former director Johnny C. Go, SJ, and now flourishes under current director Aristotle C. Dy, SJ. Our thanks to the NExT team, particularly Galvin Ngo (head), Jessica Demegillo, Tess Torralba, Melvin Gallardo.

Thank you, Xavier teachers Franco Nicolo P. Addun and Reagan Austria, for sharing your technology experiences in and out of the classroom.

Thank you, Filipino paediatricians, for stimulating discussions on our wired youth: (in Cardinal Santos Medical Center): Dr. Demetrio L. Africa, Dr. Rosario Gamus-Te, Dr. Eleanor P. Custodio, Dr. Suzette A. Bautista, Dr. Edna G. Santiago; (in Medical City): Dr. Jacqueline O. Navarro, Dr. Stella G. Manalo, Dr. Romeo D. Santos, Dr. Corazon Jesusa Serafica-Diaz, Dr. Carmela Kasala; (in Philippine Children’s Medical Center): Dr. Joel S. Elises, honorary president of the Philippine Pediatrics Society Central Luzon chapter; (in the University of the Philippines-Manila): geneticist Dr. Eva Maria Cutiongco-dela Paz; (in Cebu Doctor’s University Hospital): Dr. Jovito B. Lee, Jr., Dr. Jose Antonio S. Quitevis, president of Philippine Pediatrics Society Central Visayas chapter, Dr. Myra V. Altonaga; (in Chong Hua Hospital, Cebu): Dr. Anna Marie Edvina S. Cabaero; (in Cebu Institute of Medicine): Dr. Emmalyn L. Reveldez; (in Gullas Medical Center, Cebu): Dr. Nancy T. Cinco.

Thank you, parent contributors: Custer Alignay, Rhoda Buenaventura-Pinlac, Jennifer Joy C. Ong, Mae Esguerra-Sy. Our thanks to De La Salle University-Manila literature professors Marjorie M. Evasco and Isagani R. Cruz for sharing the FREE strategy of close reading.

Thank you, student contributors: Ysabel Acosta, Ethan Zachary L. Chua, Scott Lee Chua, Angelica Marie S. Dionisio, David Francisco S. Dionisio, Rafael Ignacio S. Dionisio, Regina Jay Garcia, Matthew Leland David Y. Gue, Kester T. D. G. Ng Wee, and Rene Antonio S. Tan.

Thank you, Ateneo and Miriam students, for taking the time to answer the survey, and for candidly sharing your thoughts in the focus group discussions.

Thank you, Philippine Daily Inquirer (PDI), particularly to the editors who shared their personal and family digital experiences. Thank you, CEO and president Alexandra Prieto-Romualdez, for your parenting recommendations to develop in our youth a love for reading. Thank you, Mobile head Javier Vicente Rufino, for your insights into the digital life, including Silicon Valley executives choosing to send their kids to schools with no computers. Thank you, Lifestyle editor Thelma Sioson-San Juan and writer Pam Pastor, for writing about ways to deal with boredom.

Several of the articles in this book first appeared in Queena’s column Eureka! at PDI’s Learning section. Thank you, editors Chelo Banal-Formoso and Linda Bolido.

Thank you to all who shared resources, suggestions, insights: National Scientist Bienvenido F. Nebres, SJ; Outstanding Social Scientist Ma. Lourdes A. Carandang; Ateneo President Jose Ramon Villarin, SJ; Miriam College President Rosario O. Lapus; Ateneo Vice President for Basic Education Fr. Anthony Pabayo, SJ; Ateneo Associate Dean for Academic Affairs Eduardo Jose Calasanz; Ateneo alumnus Ruben Gomez; and Ateneo professors Gregory L. Tangonan, Ma. Regina M. Hechanova, Lota A. Teh, Flordeliza F. Francisco, Liane P. Alampay, Ma. Emma Concepcion D. Liwag, and Jan Tan Co-Chua.

Special thanks to Evangeline Bautista (Dean of Ateneo School of Science and Engineering), for graciously granting Queena a three-unit research load in order to complete the study.

Thank you, Anvil Publishing, for your support of this project from the very start. Ani Habúlan has not only done a superb editing job, but has also provided updated resources on key points of the text. Our gratitude also goes to Karina Bolasco (head), Gwenn Galvez, Joyce Bersales. Thank you, Rachelle O. Santos, for the caricatures, and Ray Sunga, for the cover.

To our husbands (Bobbit, Allan, Smith, Koots) and our kids (Ged, Raf, Dav, Gica, Scott, Migo, Maia): thank you for your patience while we were immersed in this project for three years. We love you very much.

Introduction

THE BIGGEST difference between our kids and us? They are digital natives, having never known a world without the Internet and 24/7 connectivity. We are merely digital immigrants, having visited their world only during our early, middle, or even late adulthood.

Digital devices have revolutionized the planet, affecting not just wealthier countries but also developing ones. The Philippines touts itself as the texting capital of the world, a dubious distinction considering that so many of our people still cannot meet basic needs such as food, shelter, clothing, and education.

Fifty-seven percent of Filipinos aged 23 to 25 prioritize buying gadgets, according to a 2013 survey by Sun Life Financial Philippines. Unlike older or same-age peers who are married or who have financial dependents, the selfies tend to allot more of their recurring cash flow to support their lifestyle, reports the Philippine Daily Inquirer. Eighty-six percent of them considered spending on communication as a priority.

According to the Broadband Commission for Digital Development, two-thirds of Filipinos regularly visit social-networking sites, even if only about a third have Internet access at home.

In 2010, Ateneo de Manila University psychologists Ma. Regina Hechanova and Renee Ann Ortega-Go surveyed almost 400 Internet users across the Philippines. Participants ranged in age from 13 to 70, with a mean age of 31. Thirty-one percent were students.

The researchers found that the top activities engaged in by the participants were social networking, school-related matters, entertainment, gathering news and information, e-commerce, communication, and technology deviance (such as hacking or spreading a virus).

The pace of digital technologies is so fast that in only a few years, gadget use has changed, especially among young people. In 2006, Ateneo psychologists Liane Peña-Alampay and Ma. Concepcion Liwag surveyed more than a thousand high school and college students from eleven public and private schools in three cities in Metro Manila.

Ninety-seven percent of the respondents reported going on the Internet on average of three to five times a week, with no differences between age groups, genders, or school types. In our own 2010–2012 survey, albeit in two private schools, 98 percent of respondents reported accessing the Internet daily.

In the 2006 study, more than 80 percent used e-mail for school-related activities. Friendster was the top social-networking site of choice (62 percent), followed by Multiply (12 percent), and then Facebook (8 percent).

In our study, e-mail is not the preferred method of communication. Only 65 percent use e-mail, as compared to 98 percent who prefer Facebook (for educational and other purposes), and those who do use e-mail utilize it mainly to communicate with adults, not peers. Friendster and Multiply have virtually disappeared.

Given our hurly-burly tech world, we cannot let our kids roam unfettered in the digital world without guidance of any sort. Without proper care and caution, our kids may very likely use technologies in ways that are not healthy for them in the long run. Once these bad habits are formed, they are difficult to erase.

Once a relationship based on unguided experience, attitudes, and habits is established between children and technology, says American psychologist and new-media expert Jim Taylor in his book, Raising Generation Tech, there is little hope of reshaping that relationship in a more positive direction later on.

SURVEYS

All four of us authors are mothers, with supportive spouses and, for the most part, happy and fulfilled children. At the time of this writing, Nesy (married to Bobbit) is in her sixties, Maribel (married to Allan) in her fifties, Queena (married to Smith) in her forties, and Ichel (married to Koots) in her thirties.

Our children also span a generation: Nesy’s son Ged and Maribel’s sons Raph and David are in their twenties; Maribel’s daughter Gica in her late teens; Queena’s son Scott in his mid-teens; and Ichel’s son Migo in middle childhood and daughter Maia a toddler.

All our children are digital natives, and in the process of doing this book, their inputs have been invaluable.

Our research began in 2010, with Maribel’s observation that in her various talks around the country, the biggest worry of parents is how to manage their children’s computer use. The parents were anxious about bullying, porn sites, and addiction, among others, which we felt were valid concerns.

But we did not want to give recommendations until we had solid data. In 2004, we had worked closely with Ateneo de Manila High School on a best-practices study, surveying the families of the top achieving students and involving several of them in focus-group discussions.

We approached Ateneo in 2010, this time to do a media study, and the enthusiasm of the administration and the parents’ group gave us confidence that studying student media behavior was indeed a worthwhile endeavor.

Ateneo gave us enough respondents (practically the entire high-school student body), but we were curious to find out whether there would be gender differences in media use. Ichel sent feelers to the Miriam College High School administration, which promptly gave us access to their students as well.

In 2012, we started focus-group discussions with selected parents and students who gave us more insights into their media behavior.

After pre-testing the survey on selected students, we proceeded with data collection. From 2010 to 2012, our respondents included 2,144 Ateneo and 1,905 Miriam students, for a total of 4,049 students.

We did not expect many of the results. We were surprised (and relieved) to discover that bullying was not as endemic an issue as we had surmised, a testament we believe to the effectiveness of the anti-bullying programs instituted by both schools.

Don’t get us wrong. Bullying does exist. And even one bullying case is one case too many. But the figures for bullying pale in comparison to other results.

We cannot—and should not—monitor our children all the time.

A huge majority of respondents say they are bored. Most students are distracted. Many students prefer to interact online rather than face-to-face. A significant number display addictive tendencies, particularly to gaming and social networking. Only a third of the respondents read for pleasure.

On the other hand, the things highlighted in media and parents are most worried about do not seem to be pressing issues. For instance, online gambling does not seem to be a problem, at least in these two schools, since 80 percent of respondents have never engaged in this activity.

As for pornography, some students (particularly males) say they visit porn sites. But the figures for (accessing) pornography do not worry us too much; it is but natural for adolescent boys to be curious about sex and to seek out materials to satisfy their curiosity. Their fathers used to trade Playboy magazines, now their sons visit the Web.

Sixty percent of the respondents say that their parents have rules and warnings against porn, which are heeded most of the time.

In this book, we have included a couple of articles on bullying and pornography, because we know many parents are worried about them.

However, our main concerns are those which have surfaced in our surveys, focus-group discussions, and interviews: Boredom, attention problems, self-absorption, possible addiction, and lack of interest in reading printed books, magazines, newspapers, in favor of online activities.

WORLDWIDE CONCERN

In this book, we give you the latest research on how online activities affect our children and us. Neurological data, especially functional magnetic resonance imaging scans, have revealed what happens to our brains when we play video games or surf the Net. No longer just the area of concern for pediatricians, these studies need to be communicated to parents and educators as well.

Psychological experiments, with participants subjected to an array of tasks, have shown what happens to our attention span, our social skills, and our emotions when we spend too much time in cyberspace.

Educational studies, from massive surveys to individual case studies, have convinced us that educators around the world, from primary school to graduate school, share many similar observations about what is happening to our youth today in and out of the classroom.

These studies have burgeoned in the last five years, not only in the United States, but also in South Korea, China, Australia, and the United Kingdom, among others.

Locally, our study was limited to private-school students, a majority of whose families can afford to buy multiple cell phones, tablets, television sets, computers, and gaming toys for the home. We have not surveyed the media behavior of public-school students, whose families are not as affluent.

However, from various accounts, including Filipino pediatricians, it seems like youth belonging to the lower-middle and lower classes are increasingly imitating the bad habits of those in the upper classes.

Developmental pediatrician Myra V. Altonaga of Cebu Doctors University Hospital tells of a case she personally handled. A four-year-old girl had to stop school to give way to her two elder sisters. The family could not afford to provide all three of their children with an education. A not uncommon plight, to be sure, but Altonaga was nonplussed to discover that the kids quarrel over their iPad.

When Altonaga confronted the mother about her priorities, the parent was defensive. In our digital age, gadgets are often deemed more important than school.

In 2011, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) states in a Policy Statement, that pediatricians need to ask two questions about media use at every well-child or well-adolescent visit: (1) How much screen time is being spent per day? and (2) Is there a TV set or Internet connection in the child’s bedroom?

Children and teens should engage with entertainment media for no more than one or two hours per day, and that should be high-quality content, says the AAP. It is important for kids to spend time on outdoor play, reading, hobbies, and using their imaginations in free play.

The AAP is the biggest and most up-to-date pediatrics organization in the world, monitoring the health of children and teens eighteen years and younger. Throughout this book, we abide by the most current (2011) AAP guidelines, endorsed by the Philippine Pediatrics Society, on media and technology use.

EXTERNAL CONTROLS

Based on research findings both abroad and our own media study here, we suggest ways for you to start raising children who grow up already wired.

Often this involves external controls, such as regular monitoring of the websites our kids visit, especially when they are in primary or middle school.

Or talking to our kids about what they did online. Which friends did they interact on Facebook with? Which new websites have they encountered, and what make these attractive to them? Did they learn anything new online?

But let’s get real, we cannot—and should not—monitor our children all the time. If they really want to view pornography, engage in violent gaming, or bully others online, they will find ways of doing so (if not at home, then at a friend’s house or an Internet café).

This does not mean that rules are not important. After all, we have rules for drugs and alcohol use, right? But we need to be realistic about what we can and cannot regulate, and sometimes we may need to choose our battles judiciously.

For example, when a teen is doing gaming, listening to music, and watching YouTube all at the same time while his grades are free-falling, you know you have to intervene.

But instead of banning everything, unplugging the router, and throwing the computer out of the house, try to figure out which activities he most needs to give up, at least until his grades recover and improve.

Gaming may be the most addictive, so if your teen can limit himself to half an hour of game time a day, you can let him relieve stress by listening to music and laughing at YouTube clips from time to time.

WE KNOW OUR OWN SITUATION BEST

Since each of us knows our situation best, by all means, do adapt and modify our suggestions to best fit your needs. For example, we abide by the AAP recommendation that preschool children have at most forty-five minutes of screen time (TV, computer, tablet, phone, and so on) combined, while kids younger than two years have none. Older children and teens can have a maximum digital time of hours a day.

This may seem extremely unrealistic, especially if our five-year-old is already glued to the tablet for five hours a day. Instead of giving the tablet away, we can gently decrease her screen time from five to, say, three, then hopefully, to one hour a day, making sure to provide alternative activities for her to enjoy.

It is up to us parents to do not what is easy, but what is best for our kids.

When our children are still babies or toddlers, it is possible for them not to indulge in any media time at all.

It is up to us parents to do not what is easy, but what is best for our kids.

For young children, we can program the computer to block online content we do not wish them to see, limit their time online, tell them that Facebook is off limits (this is legally true, anyway) until they enter high school. When our kids are online, it is safer and easier if we can monitor what they do in the process.

In his book, The Cult of the Amateur, Silicon Valley insider Andrew Keen says that many parents tell him they do not want to spy on their kids online.

Well, neither do I, he retorts. But I also don’t let them watch the Playboy Channel, get in a car with strange men, or hop on a plane to Las Vegas for the weekend.

BE PROACTIVE

Let us be proactive rather than reactive. Before potential problems arise, it would be better to have principles already in place, understood by the whole family.

For example, when setting limits on technology use, children and teens respond more willingly and are more likely to follow such limits when consequences are discussed with them in a nonjudgmental manner.

Many of us tend to swing from permissive to punitive and back. We are the ones who buy the gadgets for our children in the first place, for whatever reason, whether justified or not.

Then when our kids invariably succumb to gadget compulsions and start having cognitive, school, or social problems, we tend to immediately set stiff penalties, such as banning all gadget use for a week.

Banning devices is a strategy that seldom works and tends to lead children and teens to hide whatever infractions they may do. It is also so easy for them to break all our well-meant rules using their friends’ devices or rushing to an Internet café.

Self-regulation is the only way for any of us to ultimately be masters of our digital world.

SELF-REGULATION

As our children grow older, our aim is for them to self-regulate. In short, instead of external rules, we want them to develop internal controls.

Hechanova and Ortega-Go’s study shows that only self-regulation is positively correlated to positive outcomes (professional and social enhancement) and negatively correlated to negative outcomes (social harm and problematic Internet use). In other words, the more we regulate our own Internet use, the better for our professional and social lives. The less we self-regulate Internet use, the more problems arise.

On the other hand, external regulation (such as that done by parents) is negatively correlated only with social harm. This means that in their study, the most that parental control can do is to help kids avoid harm in cyberspace.

In the end, self-regulation is the only way for any of us to ultimately be masters of our digital world.

When children show us that they can abide by common-sense rules, then we can learn to start to trust them in cyberspace. Rules for teens then are naturally less externally restrictive; since they are on the verge of adulthood, we can give them more freedom to navigate the World Wide Web.

Of course, we need to discuss with them beforehand all logical and natural consequences if they violate our trust. Ultimately, we need to keep communication lines open. Communication is the foundation of strong family relationships, and no amount of cyber-damage can weaken them.

PINOY FAMILIES

In this book, we have included several stories of Filipino parents and children who so far have successfully navigated the wired world. All have struggled in one way or another, some with gaming, others with social networking, still others with mindless surfing and more.

But those featured here, including those who have made their struggles public, share one thing in common: Despite the difficulties, all of them persevere.

Now that they have reaped enough benefits to know they are on the right path, they share their stories with us.

It is not surprising that the most poignant account comes not from experts, but from parents. American mom Rachel Macy Stafford’s young daughter has already seen images on the Net that she should not have witnessed. On her blog, Hands Free Mama, Stafford writes eloquently about the challenges we all face in the digital age.

It would be lot easier to just let my child go to a separate room and stare at a separate screen, Stafford says.

It would be a lot easier to just let her go it alone rather than delving into this cyberworld that seems to change with each passing day. But the cost of separate rooms, separate screens, and separate lives is high—not being a part of your child’s online world can lead to irreparable damage to his or her mind, body, spirit, and future plans.

Stafford implores us:

Ask. Involve. Open. Protect. Educate. Model.

Even when the words don’t come easy …

Even when [your children] push you away …

Even when you’re tired after a long day …

Even when you think this doesn’t apply your child …

Even when you think you might be too late …

The moment you decide to open your eyes to the dangers of the digital world is the right time.

Let us all open our eyes. Growing up wired is not easy. But it can be done.

DEEPER READING

American Academy of Pediatrics. (2011, June 27). Children, adolescents, obesity and the media. Policy statement. Pediatrics 128(1), 201–8.

American Academy of Pediatrics. (n.d.). Media and children. http://www.aap.org/en-us/advocacy-and-policy/aap-health-initiatives/Pages/Media-and-Children.aspx. Retrieved July 31, 2013.

Broadband Commission for Digital Development. (2012, September). The state of broadband: Achieving digital inclusion for all. http://www.broadbandcommission.org/Documents/bb-annualreport2012.pdf. Retrieved July 30, 2013.

Dumlao, D. C. (2013, September 2). Gadgets, cars top priorities of ‘selfie’ gen, study finds. Philippine Daily Inquirer, p. A1 & A13.

Hechanova, M. R. & Ortega-Go, R. (2010, October). Internet use and outcomes. Paper presented at the Philippine ICT Research Network’s Living the Information Society Conference. Ateneo de Manila University, Quezon City, Philippines.

Keen, A. (2007). The cult of the amateur: How blogs, MySpace, YouTube, and the rest of today’s user-generated media are destroying our economy, our culture, and our values. NY: Doubleday.

Alampay, L. P. & Liwag, M.E.C.D. (2010, June). Social interactions of Filipino youth in the Internet: Implications for relationships with family and peers. Paper presented at the preconference-workshop on Young People and New Media in Asia and Europe: Continents Apart, Concerns Converged. Center for New Media, National University of Singapore.

Stafford, R. M. (2013, July 23). To love and protect a child in the digital world. Hands Free Mama. Blog. http://www.handsfreemama.com/2013/07/23/to-love-protect-a-child-in-a-digital-world/. Retrieved July 30, 2013.

Taylor, J. (2012). Raising generation tech: Preparing your children for a media-fuelled world. Naperville, IL: Sourcebooks.

Media Matters

By Alberto V. Ampil, SJ

Opening Prayer for Media Matters?! parent forum of the Ateneo High School, September 28, 2013

We thank You, Lord, for the gifts and wonders of your Creation.

We thank you for this gift and wonder

of being able to see the world

through the magical looking glass that is Media,

and like Alice in Wonderland,

to marvel, wide-eyed, at all its features,

the paltry and the sublime,

the chaos and the turbulence,

the order and magnificence of

a humanity, fallen, deformed,

and yet redeemed, and touched by the Divine.

Keep alive in us, always

a deep sensitivity

to what Media represents in our mind’s eye,

so that they do not become for us,

mere shadows of the real,

an endless procession of phantom images

flickering against the wall of some half-lit cave,

  disappearing into thin air.

Protect us from an indifference to—and worse,

from an ignorance of what Media lays before us.

Media Matters?

Does Media matter? we ask.

Media Matters!

Media DOES matter! we proclaim.

Media IS important! we insist.

And yet, at the same time—paradoxically,

we remind ourselves,

It is NOT that ALL important!

Help us then to separate the trivial from the crucial,

to sieve the life-giving grain from the life-less chaff,

and to come away from this encounter,

with the conviction, the belief, and the resolve,

that we shall make Media

matter in the lives of our children,

in the same way that everything,

all life, matters to You;

and by so doing, teach them,

that because all things come from You,

it is within our power to sanctify All,

in order to help us find You,

and thus fulfill Your Will in our lives.

This prayer,

we make today,

Heavenly Father,

through Christ Our Lord.

Amen.

Chapter One

Easy Myths,

Hard Truths

Tech Does Not Make Us Smarter

SINCE SILICON VALLEY is the global hotbed of technology, we expect that the people there would send their kids to the most high-tech schools. Well, we are wrong.

In Waldorf School of the Peninsula in Los Altos, California, 75 percent of the children have parents who work in technology companies. Many parents are executives in eBay, Google, Apple, Yahoo!, and Hewlett-Packard, among others.

But there are no computers in their classes. The school does not even want kids to use computers at home.

LOW TECH

Instead, kids learn the old-fashioned way—with pencils, pen, paper, blackboard, books, paints, even knitting needles.

This school runs on the philosophy that digital technologies may have ill effects on creativity, attention, and motor and social skills. This school stresses the importance of physical exercise and real-world interactions rather than virtual learning.

Fifth-grade pupils practice knitting socks to help their math and problem-solving skills; second graders play catch with bean bags while repeating verses after their teacher, reports the (UK) Mail Online. They’re not synchronizing their mail boxes and Facebook (accounts)—they are synching their brains with their bodies.

Cathy Waheed, a math teacher who used to be a software engineer, teaches fractions by asking kids to cut up apples or cake into quarters or even sixteenths.

For three weeks, we ate our way through fractions, she tells the New York Times. When I made enough fractional pieces of cake to feed everyone, do you think I had their attention?

Alan Eagle, who has a computer science degree from Dartmouth, tells the Times, I fundamentally reject the notion you need technology aids in grammar school … The idea that an app on an iPad can better teach my kids to read or do arithmetic … [is] ridiculous.

Eagle himself has an iPad and a smart phone. Moreover, he works in Google.

Ironically, his daughter in fifth-grade did not use Google, while his son three grade levels higher was just learning how to do so.

Pierre Laurent, who used to work for Intel and Microsoft, agrees with the no-gadget philosophy. His three children are all in similar schools, and his wife Monica was so impressed that she became a teacher in one of them a few years ago.

Both of them believe that in the real world, great teachers make a difference in learning.

Laurent, who now works in a technology start-up, tells the Times, Engagement is about human contact, the contact with the teacher, the contact with … peers.

SUPEREASY

Contrary to what many parents think, there is no need to start kids on technology early. Why? Digital technologies are very easy to use.

It’s supereasy, says Eagle. It’s like learning to use toothpaste. Eagle uses an apt description to drive home his point: Brain-dead easy.

Without computers, the children do not feel deprived at all. In fact, they get frustrated when people around them use gadgets all the time.

One kid complained that on a visit to his cousins, he saw them playing with their gadgets and not with each other. He had to wave his arms and say, Hello guys, I’m here.

Many children of technology executives also attend similar schools, such as the Greenwood School in Mill Valley, which is guided by a no-gadget philosophy as well.

BOTTOM LINE

The bottom line in the use of technology in education is: Does technology make us smarter?

When used properly, technology does help, as seen in the ways Xavier School, for example, has experimented with ways to make such use meaningful in class.

Ateneo High School and Miriam College High School are also thoughtful users. They have integrated technology in learning, but they prefer to proceed with caution and study the ramifications of digital learning before haphazardly requiring all students to buy tablets, laptops, or e-books.

Of course, most students prefer to learn with technology, for readily apparent reasons.

Digital technology might brighten the students’ outlook not only for the obvious reason that it gives them mouses and keyboards to wield, but also because it saves them the effort of acquiring knowledge and developing skills, says Emory University English professor Mark Bauerlein in his book The Dumbest Generation: How the Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans and Jeopardizes Our Future.

There is a price to pay.

Studying is most likely not the main reason why students stay long online.

When screens deliver works and numbers and images in fun sequence, digital fans assert, the students imbibe the embedded lessons with glee, but in fact, while the medium may raise the glee of the students, we have little evidence that the embedded lessons take hold as sustained learning in students’ minds, Bauerlein says.

Do students really use the Internet mainly for studies? In our survey, 90 percent of students say they surf the Net for homework and school projects. Less than 10 percent spend more than four hours a day doing so.

On the other hand, 85 percent of respondents say they surf the web for personal interests. Twenty-five percent spend more than four hours a day doing so.

So studying is most likely not the main reason why students stay long online.

LITTLE EVIDENCE

At the turn of the millennium, Stanford University professor emeritus Larry Cuban studied computer use in several preschools and kindergartens, high schools, and universities in Silicon Valley. He concluded that generally, computers were oversold and underused, with few lasting benefits.

More than a decade later, Cuban has not changed his mind. So far, the cumulative evidence regarding the effectiveness of digital devices in learning is missing-in-action.

Occasional studies that do show promising results for new technologies are dragged in to cover the near nakedness of research, much like a fig leaf, to justify the high costs of these new devices in the face of little evidence, says Cuban in his blog in March 2012.

The fact remains that no one knows for sure whether the new hardware and software appearing in schools work, he continues. They are all beta versions with glitches that teachers and students end up discovering.

Bauerlein cites many studies showing that students using digital technology do not do better, and sometimes, do even worse, than students who don’t use it.

In 2000, policy expert Kirk Johnson of The Heritage Foundation studied data from the National Assessment on Educational Progress on students who used computers in class at least once a week and compared their performance to students who used computers less than once a week.

His sample was fourth- and eighth-graders who took the reading test in 1998.

Johnson concluded that students who used computers more often in class did not do better than those who did not.

The use of computers in the classroom may not play a significant role in explaining reading ability, Johnson says. Thus, dedicating large amounts of federal tax dollars to the purchase of computer hardware, software, and teacher training could crowd out other worthwhile education expenditures on, for example, new textbooks, music programs, vocational education, and the arts. [I do] not suggest that there is no place for computers in the classroom … [But]computers may not have the effect on academic achievement in reading that some might expect, even when they are used by well-trained instructors.

In 2006, University of Chicago economists Austan Goolsbee and Jonathan Guryan studied how successful E-Rate had been so far in terms of providing Internet access to public schools. E-Rate, a federal program which started in 1998, gives subsidies to public schools for computers and Internet access.

The economists decided to focus on California. Because of E-Rate, the percentage of schools with Internet access grew from 55 to 85 percent in just two to three years.

But did student performance improve in these schools? The researchers decided to measure student scores in the Stanford Achievement Test, in six subjects: Math, Science, Reading, Language, Spelling, and Social Studies.

Unfortunately, they found that the huge investment in computers had no effect on student performance in any of the six subjects after a year. After two years, student performance even went down!

"The E-Rate program has