Figure 1

Headline from Alison Gopnik’s 2016 article in The New Yorker

Note. Many mainstream scholars deliberate on the merits of technology in childhood development.

The cautionary tale about technology’s detrimental impact on the youth dates back millennia. Alison Gopnik, a famous American psychologist, traces this story in the West back to Socrates, arguing that the philosopher was antagonistic towards modern technologies. Socrates, according to Gopnik (2016), thought that “reading and writing would have disastrous effects on memory” (n.p.). Now, approximately 2500 years later, skeptics of modern technologies advance a similar argument, but this time around, screens and connected devices cause a modern disaster on memory, social skills, and health. In this paper, I explore the literature highlighting the adverse effects of screen time on K-12 children, particularly in the realms of brain and social development. I recognize that this paper advances tech skeptics' claims, therefore, I also highlight the main critiques—or tech proponents’ arguments—related to children’s development. I then explore a modern school system and pedagogy that largely shuns technology and conclude this paper with a brief discussion on the future of this debate.

As an EdD candidate studying learning design, I think it is imperative that we acknowledge the harm technology could bring even if we ultimately accept its prevalence and relevance. This conversation and research are particularly relevant in a post-pandemic world, in which screentime rose across the United States and the world. In 2019, according to one American survey, children consumed an average of seven hours of media each day (McGough, 2022 p.633). During the pandemic, this number increased by 1.62 hours (Panjeti-Madan & Ranganathan, 2023, p.14). In Canada, the government estimated that screen time increased from 2.62 hours to 5.9 hours per day during this period (Panjeti-Madan & Ranganathan, 2023, p.14).

Figure 2

Screen time trends among American children, 2019-2022

Note. Screen time usage among children increased during the pandemic.

While we educators might want to optimize the time spent in front of devices, we should also research whether reducing these times is a worthwhile goal. Personally, as a father of one toddler and another child on the way, I am intrigued by this research question. I am reflecting on the screen time my son currently hs and how schools will develop their pedagogies in light of this topic. This research paper provides me space to entertain competing ideas that can shape the way I approach this delicate issue. 

Before I begin highlighting the literature that exposes the negative effects of screentime on children, I will define some key terms and explain the main gaps in the literature. The first term to define is screen time, which is ambiguous despite being a part part of everyday American vernacular. Panjeti-Madan and Ranganathan’s depiction (found in Figure 3) as the primary guide. Screen time refers to the exposure to smartphones and tablets, television, video games, social media, virtual and augmented reality, and educational content on a computer constitute screentime.

Figure 3

Panjeti-Madan and Ranganathan’s diagram of media types.

Note. This paper loops all media types together, but different media habits produce different cognitive and social developments.

Exposure to different types of media vary, but even each of these unique devices and experiences can be broken down into two additional categories: active and passive. Active engagement with devices—whether it be singing along to Sesame Street on television or solving problems in video games—is largely considered healthier for children. According to Bi Ying Hu et al.’s (2020) meta-analysis on children and screentime, “active screens with internet capabilities were found to improve social interaction; build relationships; increase communication; and support team-play, cooperation, imagination, curiosity, creativity, aspirations, and social status” (p.186). The reason I draw attention to this distinction in the introduction is to establish credibility with you, knowing that screentime and tech exposure is not all created the same. When I present arguments against technology in the classroom, hpowever, the understanding is that this type of policy would discriminate against screentime, both active and passive. 

This leads us to other nuances, particularly ones found in literature gaps. Of the four meta-analysis articles that I reviewed, two of them focus on children under the age of five years old and the other two focus on college-aged students. While there are studies that I reference that do investigate technology in K-12 classrooms, none can be assessed as a meta-analysis. This partially contributes to the lack of guidance associations and governments use for children when deciding age specific guidelines. For instance, the French Academy of Sciences states that between the ages of two to twelves, “passive and prolonged exposure of children to television without an interactive and instructive human presence is not advisable” (Gottschalk, 2019, p.8). The American Academy of Pediatrics likewise does not have specific, concrete screentime limitations for children over the age of five (American Academy of Pediatrics, 2023, n.p.). This is relevant because both critics and opponents of technology in the classroom draw starkly different opinions when deciding what is best for school-aged children.

Throughout the remainder of this paper, I will highlight the main theories that argue that screentime exposure is detrimental to the development of school-aged children. I will then highlight the key theories and approaches in defense of technology’s role in student development, and finally draw attention to the Waldorf school model that largely keeps technology out of the classroom. In the final section, I will discuss whether such a school model is plausible and replicable in this age of technology and connectivity.

Figure 4

Accompanying graphic from Jean M. Twenge’s 2017 article “Have smartphone destroyed a generation? In The Atlantic.

Note: Whereas Gopnik’s article points out the inevitable use of technology, Twenge challenges her readers to observe the adverse effects media has on children and young adults.

In this section of the paper, I will address some of the leading theories contributing to the case that tech exposure for school aged children (6-17 years of age) is detrimental to their overall well-being. This theory has become popularized in recent years; The Atlantic and other publications have cautioned that these devices lead to both poor learning and health outcomes for millions of children. Using the structure of this course, I will examine how tech impacts childhood development, namely cognitive and social behavior. Before diving into those two specific areas, I want to address a meta-analysis conducted by the National Institutes of Health, the pre-eminent U.S. agency tasked with collecting and communicating health research. After examining 58 multi-discipline studies, the authors of this NIH meta-analysis concluded:

Television viewing and video game playing were inversely associated with the academic performance of children and adolescents. In addition, the negative association between these screen-based activities and academic performance seemed greater for adolescents than for children (Adelantado-Renau et al., 2019, p.1059).

While they acknowledge that overall screentime exposure was not reviewed, this sweeping analysis should call educators and parents to consider the impact of screens on academic performance. Certainly teachers and administrators cannot dictate (at least not effectively) students' activity outside of the classroom, so the negative consequences of screentime could not be entirely mitigiated. Because not everything can be controlled should not mean that schools cannot foster a positive learning environment. Since the negative association between screen time and academic performance is a general claim, I will first explore the negative associations between screens and brain development.

Figure 5

Depction of adolescent brain development from Temple and Devee-Chee

Note: The hippocampus could take as long as 16 years to fully develop. 

First, the brain is still considered to be an extremely complex organ to understand fully, and research is still not definitive on how our surroundings totally impact its functionality. As neuroscientist Gottschalk (2019) states, “brain imaging can give some insight into brain structure and activation patterns, however functional relevance is difficult to infer, and this type of research is still in a rather exploratory phase” (p. 13). One consensus in neuroscience that is credibly inferred is the plasticity of the brain in babies, toddlers, and children. The hippocampus, which is near the front of the brain (and is depicted developmentally in Figure 5), is especially vulnerable to changes from an early age, according to research performed by Bliss and Schoepfer, Pastalkolva et al., and others (Gottschalk, 2019, p.29). The hippocampus is largely made of “brain white matter tracts” that supports “language and emergent literary skills” in children (Vohr et al., 2021, p.1030). According to a study conducted by Hutton et al, there is a strong association between “increased screen-based media use” and worse integrity of these brain tracts (Vohr et al., 2021 p.1030). Language and literary skills are not the only ones affected by screen-based media.

Another skill housed in the hippocampus is memory and learning. According to Grahame, not only is increased screen time also associated with worsening memory, but the hardware (i.e. keyboards) is arguably worse in developing memory skills. In order words, both the acts of viewing and typing are worse alternatives than simple text books. He writes:

The cognitive function required to take handwritten notes is very different than the cognitive function used with a keyboard or copy/ paste function.4 Writing is a complex process that involves the interplay of cognitive function and a sensorimotor/perceptual combinations in a way that typing on a keyboard does not. (Grahame, 2016, p.47)

Handwriting notes encourages active listening as well, and it simultaneously forces a student to both operate their own pre-existing knowledge with the comprehension of new material (Grahame, 2016, p.47). If students do not have an opportunity to exercise this type of skill (one not available while typing), this likely negatively impacts long-term learning.

Related but distinct from cognitive issues are negative social behaviors correlated with screentime. Bi Ying Hu, a professor of Early Childhood Education and Child Development, and his colleagues conducted a meta-study analyzing children’s behavior for those who viewed over 2 hours of digital media each day. Hu et al. (2020) write, “Several studies have shown that excessive screen time (passive or active) is associated with attention deficits, social and behavioral concerns, cognitive difficulties, language delays, sleeping disorders, eating concerns, and obesity” (p.183). Regarding attention deficit issues, Hu et al. reference a study that can predict attention problems based on screentime between the ages of two and seven. However, Hu et al. do approach their meta-analysis with nuance, finding that these social behavior issues were less common for those exposed primarily to active content sans passive content, though they still found negative behavior for all high screentime exposure.

Panjeti-Madan and Ranganathan in their meta-analysis drew similar conclusions as Bi Ying Hu et al. They write, “Various behavioral problems, such as aggressive behavior, attention problems, and health problems, including sleep and obesity, are associated with technology usage in early childhood” (Panjeti-Madan & Ranganathan, 2023, p.7). Again, these negative consequences both mentally and socially challenge the prevalence of technology’s presence around children. A school environment should seek to foster healthy students who can develop without inhibitions to memory as well and to reduce negative social behavior triggers.

Critics call into question the broad claim of deterioration posed by screentime and screens in general. Earlier in this paper, I delineated between active and passive screentime, but critics of a zero-tech policy go beyond this distinction. many critics would agree that not only does technology not pose significant risks to student growth, but it actually can foster social skills when introduced correctly. The rise in media usage has ballooned in recent years, but this rise in screentime cannot be avoided entirely. Students still have lives beyond the classroom, and it should be the responsibility of educators to foster healthy habits. Empowering individuals to make decisions about their learning based on evidence is a valuable teaching strategy because it puts students in the driver seat of how they want to learn with technology, argues Torrey Trust (2018, p.131). Assuming that technology can be used responsibly, two of the central critiques of ignoring it all together are the failure to acknowledge successful pedagogies and the lack of concern for students with disabilities.

Figure 6

Foundational methods of collaborative learning.

Note: Collaborative or new learning uses modern technology tools to foster shared learning. 

Beginning with the former, collaborative learning is one such pedagogy that successfully uses technology and advances student learning and positive social interaction. Collaborative learning or also known as New Learning—as advocated by our professors Cope and Kalantzis—ultimately puts students in control of their learning, resulting in active knowledge production and knowledge sharing. These authors acknowledge that traditional e-learning can be disappointing, considering that educators fail to adjust their pedagogies yet still embrace new technologies (Kalantzis & Cope, 2008-2022, introduction). Through New Learning, technology is just one factor in a broader societal movement of greater “international integration” and ubiquitous learning, which is informal and not limited to a classroom (introduction). New Learning, using new technologies, creates “participant-researchers or action researchers – analyzing situations, anticipating and solving problems, thinking creatively, innovating and taking well-judged risks. This means adding a cognitive reflexivity, an intellectual recursiveness to everything we do” (introduction). While a class might exclude technology, Kalantzis and Cope argue, educators cannot ignore that new technologies are having a considerable impact on learning outside of the classroom.

Accounts of collaborative learning’s success are quite diverse, even excluding the ways that this course and other Kalantzis and Cope courses are run. For instance, Aseery conducted a qualitative study examining the use of this pedagogy in a Christian religious educational setting. One such asset of collaborative learning is digital storytelling, which “facilitates the creative inclusion of personal or online images and videos to help students learn religious concepts effectively” (Aseery, 2024, p.52). Following the course’s completion, a survey concluded that students’ engagement with material increased, ultimately improving learning.

Video 1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g95TO20hnmo

Video titled, “Elle is just one K-12 student who relies on technology to assist with learning in the classroom.” Created by CNBC.

Note. Some students with disabilities highly benefit from modern technologies in the classroom.

Regarding the second critique, forbidding technology in the classroom can lead to the exclusion of students with disabilities. While disability is a broad term, this can reference both mental and physical challenges, ranging from attention deficit to blindness. In Cheng and Lai’s (2022) meta-analysis of this topic, they conclude that technology (particularly related to screens) has served as an equalizer in education and results in achieved learning objectives (p.132). This argument is advanced further in Video 1 above. Given this reality and recognition of technology’s role to often marginalized student populations, Cheng and Lai conclude that “in the technology-integrated context of special education, teachers are encouraged to adjust their teaching approaches and employ computer-assisted tools to assist disabled students in their learning” (p.132). Collaborative learning and tech-driven special education both necessitate screens in the classroom and foster stronger, more inclusive learning times.

Waldorf Schools, an international K-12 school system, largely do not permit individual screens in the classroom. Leaders of these schools believe that devices impede their ability to advance a holistic pedagogy. The original Waldorf School was founded by Rudolf Steiner in 1919 in Stuttgart, Germany (Randoll & Peters, 2015, p.33). The owner of a prominent cigarette factory in asked Steiner to develop a school for the children of factory workers, and both the owner and Steiner believed that education should foster both mental and spiritual growth. Today, there are hundreds of Waldorf Schools that enroll K-12 students around the world (p.33).

At the time of the original school’s founding, religious schools also existed with a similar ethos. While religious schools also professed to educate both mind and spirit, Rudolf Steiner had a unique approach to understanding children’s formation. He believed that the spiritual element of humans was comprehensible through the senses, therefore, his schools would seek to address the formation of each sense (Uhrmacher, 1995, n.p.). Additionally, this anthroposophical approach encourages the formation of imagination and intuition, as those are representative of a repressed spirituality (Uhrmacher, 1995, n.p.).

Given this dualistic belief, Steiner developed a pedagogy that would achieve this harmony for children. Steiner fundamentally believed that children are “sense organs” meaning that they are “wide open to the people and activities in the world around” (Fenner & Rivers, 1999, n.p.). At an early age, children are attuned to their physical surroundings via their senses. The way children manifest this understanding of their surroundings is through imitation (Barnes, 1980, p.2). Therefore, children should be able to mimic the natural world, and play and imagination are primary ways to do this. According to Barnes’s (1980) research on Waldorf pedagogies, young children (those 10 years and below) should not be bogged down by “premature intellectual demands”; traditional learning will eventually come later in life (p.3). Barnes (1980) adds, “Whatever speaks to the imagination and is truly felt stirs and activates the feelings and is remembered and learned. The elementary years are the time for educating the feeling intelligence” (Barnes, 1980, p.3).

In this imagination-focused, spiritually-attuned education model, technology is an antithesis. While each Waldorf School is free to conduct their curriculums and styles as they see fit, many forgo technology. Even a prominent Waldorf School in Silicon Valley, the hub of tech innovation, is free of computers, phone, and tablets (Weller, 2018, n.p.).

Video 2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_HboTR55Bo

Video titled, “Inside A Tech-Free School Where Tech Executives Send Their Kids.”

Note. Even the most tech-friendly communites recognize the merits of a tech-free education.

I decided to focus this case study on my local Waldorf School in St. Louis, called the St. Louis Waldorf School. This K-12 school is proudly tech-free during the first eight grades, and in order to convince prospective students and parents to their merits, they address the issue prominently on their website. The school slowly introduces technology over time, but it is not until high school when tech is used as a tool vice a teacher (Waldorf School of St Louis, n.d.,n.p.). In order to understand this cautious approach, I want to highlight how the administration views their mission. Similar to Steiner’s original view, they write:

We aim to engage children with what they really need in the order they need it (the developmental approach) and foster strong bodies, healthy senses, rounded and inspired emotional development, and a passion and curiosity for intellectual learning before introducing the powerful influence of technology. This slow-tech approach to learning will lead to stronger children in the end (Waldorf School of St Louis).

Education is all about timing, and the needs of a high schooler are different than a first grader. In fact, tech is not introduced until around 7th grade, as doing so earlier “would hamper their ability to fully develop strong bodies, healthy habits of discipline and self-control, fluency with creative and artistic expression, and flexible and agile minds” (Waldorf School of St Louis). The administrators at the St. Louis Waldorf School also invoke research to substantiate Steiner’s original claims. For example, they cite research that claims that both the neuro and nervous systems are plastic at an early age, similar to the ones introduced earlier in this paper. They state that exposure to screens, “can affect such things as eye-tracking (a necessary skill for successful reading), neurotransmitter levels, and how readily students receive the imaginative pictures that are foundational for learning. Media exposure can also negatively affect the health of children’s peer interaction and play” (Waldorf School of St Louis). Yes, students may not be as fluent in tech usage from an earlier age, but high school students can quickly learn how to use them. In other words, the skills acquired from tech usage at an early age are not worth the overall risks associated with them. Students need to be mature enough to acquire tech literacy, and ultimately, the Waldorf pedagogy helps to develop to that mature state, tech-free.

Figure 7

The American Academy of Pediatrics’s recommendations for screentime for children.

Note. The AAP believes that excessive exposure to screen time is detrimental to children.

In the Alison Gopnik piece, the one cited in the introduction, she argues that many generations fail to provide and comprehend new technologies, particularly in its relationship to children. “Innovative technologies always seem distracting and disturbing to the adults attempting to master them, and transparent and obvious—not really technology at all—to those, like Augie, who encounter them as children,” Gopnik (2016) writes (n.p.) While technology may come as an assumed reality to many children, Waldorf Schools and other tech-free learning environments still believe that screens are disturbing to the development of children. This begs the question: is this approach too idealistic, even in light of research that illuminates the harm of excessive screentime? Regardless of the answer, it is crucial that administrators, parents, and researchers continue to explore these questions despite the possibilities that modern technologies give us.