Professor Lelia Green and her co-authors might well cringe at the predictive quality and timing of the BBC political drama The House of Cards (now available to watch on YouTube). However much we might judge Digital Media Use in Early Childhood, it does seem to have misfired rather, given what is now the all-encompassing universality of the acronym AI (artificial intelligence).
True, Green et al. can be praised for including the digital implications and aftermath of the pandemic in their book, but their account can be seen to have omitted, through no real fault of their own, any reference to the term ‘AI’.
To labour such a point would be like splitting hairs and should not unduly mask the positives in what is an excellent portrayal of digital media use in the lives of young children.
The work blends statistical realism with case studies to produce an incisive read that unravels valuable knowledge for the early years educator.
The book consists of 12 main chapters. Chapters 1, 2 and 3 delve into learning and creative activities, screen time, the seminal theorists, parenting and young families.
The following six chapters evaluate how the digital experiences of pre-school staff, parents, grandparents and infants relate to the technological environment in terms of historical engagement and enablement.
Chapters 10 and 11 focus on diversity in children's experiences and parents' assessment of youngsters' learning through digital media. A summary of the book is given in Chapter 12.
One area of contention is where Digital Media Use in Early Childhood draws on the experiences of a limited number of families in the UK and Australia, which might lead the reader to think that the authors' samples do not live up to a recognised quantitative precept. Green et al. themselves concede here that they do not stick to the rules of statistical methods of sampling, but does such an admission really exonerate them from what can only really be called a methodological shortfall?
Yet the debate employed by Digital Media Use in Early Childhood aims to heighten the increased deployment of PCs, tablets, iPads, etc. There is also an awareness of the benefits of such technology in helping children learn more about the world.
Green et al. do not, however, renege on admitting the potential harm of digital devices and point out that parents have mixed experiences of using educational apps and technological media. In this sense, the authors leave no stone unturned and assert that there are very real and existential problems caused by exposure to certain kinds of media, including pornography, violence and shooting games. Parental controls can assist in mitigating the worst effects, and in some cases, these can be highly effective in keeping sensitive and damaging material out of children's reach.
It is disappointing that governments ignore many of the arguments highlighting the dangers of AI – instead, policy-makers are often too blasé about the risks to society.
The emphasis on an in-depth analysis is never diverted from by Green et al., whose erudite and accessible approach provides significant insights into digital media use in early childhood.
