Principles 1-3: Usage, Screentime, Format
Germane - "fit for purpose"
Principle 1 - Usage
In understanding that digital content is accessed for learning, for leisure, or for regulation, and that each type of usage has a place in a balanced ‘digital nutrition’, we question whether the type of usage is fit for purpose.
Endearing question
Is the reason I am accessing digital content, that is what I am accessing it for, fit for purpose?
Looking at the research
Problem analysis clustered three types of technology usage, or reasons to access and interact with digital content for adolescents, learning, leisure, and regulation.
Transacting with content for learning is our ‘normal’, almost all content is digitally available, and across all learning areas students are required to interact digitally to varying degrees. In a school context, access for learning is the primary intended use of digital technologies, and in embracing usage for learning we are ingraining conceptual, critical thinking, and integrative learning skills within our learners (Crittenden et al., 2019).
Usage for leisure incorporates both access of content for ‘non-learning’ purposes, as well as an overlay of learning if we consider ‘flow’ states synonymous with gamification affordances (Morris et al., 2013), or engagement (Redmond et al., 2018).
Access for leisure may be considered as task (in)appropriate usage habits in an either a school context, or out-of-school consumption or interaction with content for socialisation, personal development, ‘downtime’, or entertainment.
Access for regulation focusses on the interaction with digital content for the purpose of [self]regulation. Differing from ‘down-time’, this usage type centres around restoring emotional regulation (for example when in a dysregulated state consequential to a stress response) (Winfrey & Perry, 2021), involving the use of digital technologies to influence affective states, such as stress levels, mood, and emotional state (Wadley et al., 2020).
Usage, as a digi-mindset praxis principle acknowledges that all three usage types are relevant and valuable, context dependent.
Principle 2 - Screentime
Acknowledging that screentime is not a simple time-based measurement that hits a daily limit, screentime represents a balance between usage type, device selection, and content format. In this regard, screentime questions the appropriateness of engaging with digital content on any specified device.
Endearing question
Is how I am viewing digital content appropriate for when I am accessing it?
Looking at the research
Screentime questions whether screen use is fit for purpose. Rather than limiting the discussion to time-based restrictions based on age, for example by setting screentime limits using World Health Organisation (2019) recommendations. “As communication moves from face-to-face and voice-only phone conversations to more screen-to-screen interactions…daily communication is becoming more intertwined with screentime” (Reid Chassiakos et al., 2016. p.3).
The digi-mindset flips the narrative by questioning the appropriateness of the screentime engagement (Culatta, 2021), balanced with the usage type and content format (Sadowski & Eklund, 2021; Korhonen, 2021). Excessive screentime interferes with interpersonal relations (Wartella, 2014), social interaction (Korhonen, 2021), and deficits in family communication and intimacy (Sadowski & Eklund, 2021), potentially leading to negative psychological or physical consequences resulting from digital distraction or technology addiction (Chen et al., 2020; Dontre, 2021; Santhosh, 2021; Sunday, 2021; Reid Chassiakos et al., 2016; Karl, 2021; Kazaz & Dilci, 2022).
Conversely, screentime offers affordances including positive family and peer connectivity (Sadowski & Eklund, 2021), a positive coping mechanism for regulation (Korhonen, 2021), engagement in learning, exposure to new ideas and knowledge, opportunities for social contact, and support (Reid Chassiakos et al., 2016).
Balance is the key, the context, content, and connections associated with screentime is influential in determining cognitive, emotional, and social outcomes (Straker et al., 2018; Reid Chassiakos et al., 2016), where the screentime affordances of format, physical device, and usage are paired appropriately.
Principle 3 - Format
Accessing digital content for communication, media streaming, information, social media, or gaming, as formats of digital content, each have relevant and healthy context. The format of digital content is germane when there is an agreeance that the format is within the context of the engagement.
Endearing question
Does the digital content format I am accessing fit the context I am supposed to be accessing content for?
Looking at the research
Format questions whether the format of digital content (communication, video/audio streaming, informational, gaming, social media) being accessed is fit for purpose, or task relevant.
Each format arguably has a place in learning, leisure, or regulation usage types, however just as usage and screentime are (or are not) fit for purpose in a given context, the germane choice of content format should be questioned as to the situation it is being accessed.
Relevant for learners in class and at home, and extends to educators through instructional design, specifically in an extended consideration of Biggs’ constructive alignment (2003), is the content format appropriate for the task, does the task align with the assessment, and subsequently the curriculum?