Catherine L'Ecuyer (Canada, 1974) is a doctor in Education and Psychology. She lives in Barcelona and is a mother of four children. She has written books such as the best-sellers Educate in Astonishment and Educate in Reality (Plataforma), and Conversations with My Teacher. Doubts and certainties about education (Espasa). Her article The Wonder Approach to Learning was published in the journal Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, and she is considered one of the most respected voices in the world of education across the state.
We spoke with her following the debate on the postponement of the first mobile phone until the age of 16, and the emergence of WhatsApp and Telegram groups with thousands of families who demand an adolescence without smartphones. We also took the opportunity to talk with L'Ecuyer about new technologies and education, since she is a specialist on the subject and a pioneer in critical analysis of the issue.
You have entered the groups of parents on Telegram and WhatsApp who work for a “mobile-free adolescence” to see what was happening… What did you think?
I have entered 15 groups. It is a true social phenomenon, it is a cry for help. But my conclusion is that they need to organize themselves or they will die of success. They may end up victims of what they denounce, which is the saturation of decontextualized and irrelevant information. Furthermore, this channel makes it difficult to delve deeper into the alternative, implications, causes... I believe that we will win the battle only through rigor and knowledge. It is necessary to go to the studios.
Has this movement of families against mobile phones before the age of 16 emerged with such force on the networks only in Catalonia or in other parts of the state?
Catalonia has been a pioneer in the use of WhatsApp and Telegram to organize to ask for changes, but concern and awareness is throughout the state. Many parenting groups ask for the same thing. I receive inquiries every day asking for recommendations for screen-free schools. I believe that in the Valencian Community there are more families mobilized and concerned about the issue.
Is the weak point of the movement of parents for the postponement of cell phones the excessive diversity of opinions among them?
There are many different sensitivities and discrepancies. They do not agree. You will always have the father or mother who says, “well, it depends on how you use your cell phone or tablet…” Consensus is so difficult that a rather weak proposal can end up coming out.
There are petitions on Change.org for Congress to ban the use of cell phones by children under 16 years of age... What do you think of a ban by law?
In general, a law that regulates how to educate children does not seem appropriate to me. It is fathers and mothers who must decide about technology and whether it is introduced at 14, 16 or 18 (I lean towards 18). I fiercely defend legislation to create a context that makes life easier for families. What does it mean? Let legislation be made to regulate companies, not families.
How? What should the law state, according to you?
The law must set a minimum age for entry into social networks. 13 years (the current age) is outrageous, and we are talking about public health. Technology companies must be held responsible with fines and legal consequences. Just as we cannot enter a house to check if a creature is smoking, what you must control by law is the sale and access to devices, and I would even say access to platforms. Governments must regulate. There are a lot of minors on PornTube. There must be a mechanism for controlling and verifying ages, it is a jungle right now.
And as for the entry of cell phones and tablets into classrooms... Should it be regulated by law?
Yes, the government must regulate the entry of mobile phones and devices into school premises and in the infant stage (there should not be any technology at this stage, for public health reasons). Regarding technology in the classrooms, I am in favor of solving the issue by giving educational freedom to parents and centers. If parents do not want tablets in the classrooms, there should be centers that offer this option. If we do not regulate companies or regulate education, but we tell parents what they should do with their children, we put them in an impossible situation. We have created an environment in which families cannot educate, they must go against everything, we must help them.
But what negative effects of cell phones have been demonstrated in adolescence?
It has been established that there is a relationship between social media use and depression and other mental health problems. The United States government is going after Facebook (Meta) for these reasons. Digital multitasking takes its toll and is even worse for a person who is in close contact with technology. Their attention span is greatly reduced, there is a loss of relevance, there is worse oscillation between tasks, less depth of thought and less attention. In addition, greater impulsivity is also seen. In general, studies suggest that learning is better on paper than on a screen, writing on paper is better than with a keyboard.
What should be taken into account before giving a mobile phone to one's son or daughter?
It is necessary to assess the child's maturity. There are some characteristics that the boy or girl must have: being able to inhibit external stimuli (able to say “I don't click here now because it is not the time”, as in real life, not eating something if it is not the time, may he have temperance). You must know how to differentiate what is important and urgent, you must have judgment. She must also have context and knowledge to contextualize the information. She must know how to distinguish what is private from what is public, know that content with copyright or protected by the right to privacy is not shared. The list of requirements before giving you a mobile phone is enormous.
It is impossible to accomplish all this before having a mobile phone. Not even adults fulfill it...
That is why we can fall into addiction. If at 45 we can't resist cell phones, how is a 12-year-old going to do it? You can't ask a 12 or 14 year old to drink from a fire hydrant with a sippy cup and not splash. Cell phones and tablets are devices designed for addiction. Our children's attention is the product of technology platforms and companies.
Does parental control work?
If you are considering parental control, the child is not ready. Parental controls fail and can be easily bypassed. Rules are needed, but if as parents the basis for our decision is that there is a filter, it is not enough. There must be a relationship of absolute trust between children and parents.
Are spaces without technology needed?
Yes, for children, young people and adults. Mobile phones should not enter the room, the first smartphone should not be in one's pocket 24 hours a day: it should be in a common space and with a password that everyone knows. If you ask your son or daughter for the phone and they don't want to give it to you, it's because it wasn't the time to give it to them. There should also be no cell phones at meals. In addition, you should not have notifications activated, since they interfere with family life.
In younger children there is also a lot of evidence about the effect of screens...
Letting a baby from 0 to 2 years old consume screens could be classified as abuse. The State could legislate to impose a public health criterion because it can be harmful on a neurological level. All pediatric societies say this and all the studies are conclusive, not with an educational criterion, but with public health. From 2 to 5 years, access should be less than an hour a day, and only quality content.
Are there no studies on the benefits of screens in childhood?
The Canadian Pediatric Association said in 2017 that "no study validates the introduction of technologies in childhood." There is no set of quality studies that say that there are pedagogical benefits of using technologies in the classroom at the pre-university stage. The industry has technological obsolescence as a model. What happens is that serious studies take years to be done and the set of studies on a technology come out years after it has been adopted. That is why I have been defending the culture of precaution for many years. What we are doing is reckless, our children and their brains act as guinea pigs.
You have been very critical, for many years, with the introduction of new technologies in classrooms...
In 2015, when I published Educate in reality (Platform), it was not possible to have a critical discourse with technologies. Schools contacted me to give a talk and suddenly they canceled me when they realized the commotion there could be. I could be a risk to the school, just for giving my opinion.
What exactly does it say about using tablets in the classroom? What is the controversial speech?
I say that there was not enough evidence to adopt them as an educational method, there is no set of quality studies in indexed journals that say that there are clear educational benefits: and, secondly, that tells us that there is an absence of serious drawbacks. The burden of proof falls on technology companies, not experts, families or schools. Whoever introduces tablets, the companies, are the ones who say that there are advantages.
What if I ask you if tablets should be removed from classrooms?
I don't understand why they ask me that question. The question is: should we introduce these devices in the classroom? Why has all this entered the classroom? At the MWC in Barcelona in 2015 I remember hearing teachers saying that, according to the Generalitat, mobile phones had to be introduced into the classrooms. It was at an industry conference where all this started to be talked about. Do we use tablets in classrooms because the industry has ended up imposing it?
The power of this industry is very strong. I think you can't have that power to decide what goes into the classroom. The technology industry does not have pedagogical know-how. What you have are devices with a bunch of apps that run on algorithms. These algorithms are frequent and intermittent stimuli, and our children end up following the stimuli, a form of educational mechanism, which I denounce in my books. The mechanisms turn the child into a passive being.
What does this mean?
The continuous stimuli that make us passive is the philosophy behind gamification, of flipped classrooms: turning the classroom into a fireworks display that never ends. The creature is amazed or amazed and the desire to know this admiration is necessary for it to become interested in reality at its own pace, slowly, from the inside out. With technologies what we do is dull the child and turn him into a passive being. His interest falls asleep, he becomes unmotivated. Overstimulation leads to demotivation.
What to do about this? You talk about two ways…
The first is to enter into this logic and create an increasingly deafening noise, enter a spiral and raise the thresholds of hearing to very high levels. The second, lower the level of stimuli, helping them reconnect with reality, slowness, be able to have a conversation, look in the face, read a good book.
Is this being considered now? Or are the majority of centers in the first option?
In practice we are in the option.
This article was originally published on RAC1.
