FIGURE 5.1 Just checking the latest Pinterest!
Almost all of the favorite play activities of Will, age 8, who has been diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, involve interactions with technology-augmented play materials. Will spends hours on the computer or iPad watching and responding to the actions of his “virtual friends.” He describes these characters’ actions and talks as though they are really present but has difficulty responding to “real-time” social interactions with other students or even with his parents and siblings. He did learn some social interaction behaviors in kindergarten by watching a video of a child demonstrating ways to play and language phrases to use during play with other children, but these play interactions did not expand into more nuanced social interactions and language as he grew older. He has learned academic skills and complex routines from a variety of computer-assisted programs, however, so his parents think he might become a computer programmer or work in some other technology field when he is older.
Predicting the future has always been an activity of interest to humans, and such predictions have been discussed by numerous writers. Depending on how the future is predicted from extrapolations of the authors’ present society, some writers have described utopian (splendid) or dystopian (horrible) views of that future society, while others have combined elements of both. One of the first descriptions of a utopian civil society was described by Plato in his book The Republic (380 BC), but the word was first coined by Thomas More in his book entitled Utopia (1516). Utopian views focus on the wonders and advantages that will be available in future years while dystopian literature points out how potentially negative characteristics of an existing society can become extreme and thus be harmful in the future. Often utopian literature includes some potentially grave choices that could lead to less desired outcomes or potential threats that might occur. For example, Swift’s Gulliver’s Travels (1726) described both good and not-so-good alternative societies. Movie series such as the Star Wars (1977–2015) group also juxtapose good and evil societal dimensions. The plots of the Star Trek television show invented by Gene Rodenberry (see Van Hise, 1992) often engaged the crew in evaluating positive or negative outcomes that might occur depending on the wisdom of human decisions. Video games like the Sims also allow players to create “ideal” worlds, but also face potential disasters that might destroy those worlds.
Well-known dystopian views have been expressed by Butler (Erewhon, 1921) and We (Zamyatin, 1921/1924) and more recently by Huxley (Brave New World, 1932), Orwell (Nineteen Eighty-Four, 1949), Bradbury (Fahrenheit 451, 1953), and Burgess (A Clockwork Orange, 1962). Some of these authors described societies in which technological and biological advances were used to create societies favoring special groups and subjugating other groups, while others predicted the loss of established knowledge sources (e.g., books) due to pervasive technological advances. In recent times there have been an increasing number of novels, movies, young adult fiction, and video games with dystopian themes. For example, the movies Wall-E and Avatar both describe earth’s environmental ruins from destructive, technologically based decisions, and some current video games series, Fallout™ (a post-nuclear simulation) and Half-Life™ (science and aliens), also have dystopian themes.
On the 25th anniversary of a movie that envisioned a wonderful future world with many technological innovations (Back to the Future II, 1985), some futurists gave their reflections on what was and was not correctly predicted to be available in 2015. The movie envisioned time travel, flying cars, and many other technology marvels that still do not exist, but some of the many devices imagined are actually present in 2015 (Schonfeld, 2014). For example, the movie envisioned humans making video calls, using glasses similar to Google Glass, and having drones and hoverboards. Michael Rogers, one of the futurists quoted in this article, said that at least the movie “wasn’t a scary dystopia” and another, Ross Dawson, said, “we discover what we want.”
Predicting future consequences from analysis of present-day events has been the major concern of the World Future Society, founded in 1967. Members of this group are drawn from many professions but all members attempt to use scientific reasoning to forecast what short-term and long-term future scenarios will be. In a recent publication entitled Outlook 2015, the “Top Trends and Forecasts for the Decade Ahead” suggested that the technological changes already developed will lead to vast societal differences even in the next 10 to 30 years. Some of the predictions from this issue include the following:
These sets of predictions are still relatively short term but in his books on this topic one of the founders of the World Future Society, Ray Kurzweil (2005) has predicted that by 2020 there will be accurate computer simulations of the human brain and in the longer term (post 2045), creatures of technology (e.g., nanobots) will begin to take over the human world. This “singularity” will occur gradually as various parts of the human body and brain become augmented by technology. He predicts that as these technology-generated beings continue to gain the cognitive skills of humans, the human brain and body will cease to exist. Thus, human/tech creatures will never die. There are many other futurists who are concerned about Kurzweil’s prediction, however, and they suggest that this trend must be addressed and, if not desired, changed.
Bill Joy, who is cofounder of Microsystems, stated in 2000, “The new Pandora’s boxes of genetics, nanotechnology, and robotics are almost open, yet we seem hardly to have noticed. Ideas can’t be put back in a box … Once they are out, they are out” (p. 68). He suggests that humans must address these issues to avoid some dire consequences, but also quotes Danny Hillis, cofounder of Thinking Machines Corporation and a futurist, who responded to these predictions by saying that the changes will be gradual so humans will just get used to them over time. Joy believes that these new technologies also hold “untold promise” but that with each one, power is accumulated by a smaller number of people. Although he says that could be dangerous, he says, “I remain optimistic” (p. 73).
It is beyond the purview of this book to discuss possible effects of all of these technological changes on future human experience. However, because the types of play in which children engage have such powerful effects on their developmental trajectories, an issue of great interest is whether and how changes in children’s play behaviors resulting from their pervasive use of technology-augmented play materials may become factors affecting human brain development and other human abilities in this century and beyond.
In an essay entitled “Play and the Origin of the Species” Michael Ellis (1998) asserted that human evolution has been shaped and fostered by our species’ propensity for play. He suggested that although play is not necessary for human survival on an immediate basis, it has been crucial for evolutionary survival because human playfulness extends the limits of human experiences and enables us to be capable of dealing with future unknowns. He concluded, “It brought us to where we are now both as a species and as individuals and will be the basis for our future adaptation to the unpredictable future” (p. 31). Thus, it is possible that the technology-augmented play experiences of children and adolescents today will prepare them for a future with increased human possibilities or that such play will fit them for a future with diminished human possibilities. It is also possible that the effects of such play will be more radical at some age periods than at other age periods because of the types of brain development going on at those age periods.
Because the growth and elaboration of the neuronal network are at their peak during the first 5 years of life, the experiences that young children encounter will have a major effect on how their brains develop and on which networks and functional areas of their brains are most richly structured. Reviewing this information, during the first year of life the somatosensory, vestibular, and motor systems develop rapidly. As noted earlier, infants thrive on being touched and by being able to touch other people and objects in the environment, and they also love being bounced, swung, and given other vestibular experiences (Eliot, 1999). The coordination of voluntary movement increases as the cerebellum and basal ganglia areas are myelinated. The amygdala, site of emotional responses, is already active and within the first year, the limbic cortex matures so that expressions of attachment and stranger anxiety are seen. Infants are also extremely responsive to speech and by 1 year they are more responsive to the language sounds of their native environment.
In a recent book concerned with the value of face-to-face interpersonal interactions, Susan Pinker (The Village Effect, 2014) reminds the reader that human babies are “hardwired to connect face-face” (p. 126); that is, their brains are already prepared to observe parents’ and other humans’ social engagement with them and to respond with imitative behaviors. She cites Meltzoff and colleagues (Saby, Marshall, & Meltzoff, 2012; Saby, Meltzoff, & Marshall, 2013), who have studied infant/parent social interaction extensively, and who recently described the brain mapping and mirror neuron activity occurring in infants when they have participated in child/parent socially playful interactions. During such interactions, the infant brain is extremely active and reflects dynamic connective actions in many areas. These researchers suggest that these early brain mappings may be predictive of infant social attachment. Whether the same types of mappings will occur when infants interact with technology-augmented toys, phones, tablets, or robotic creatures is presently unknown. Pinker (2014) cites many examples, however, of how technology has changed the “face-to-face” interactions that were prominent in pretechnology eras.
As discussed earlier, the first representative mode identified by Bruner (1964) involves enactive cognition, which is facilitated by motoric and social interactions of young children with other humans in their environment. Presently it is not known how much of such “real-world” interaction is needed in order for optimal brain, social, and cognitive development, but it is possible that this developmental process will be affected profoundly if very young children spend less time in human social and play engagement and more time in technology-augmented play engagement. An interesting study that involved a toddler engaged in CD-ROM play showed that after the child had learned to click to play it, he then began to “click” his parents to get them to do the things he desired, showing that the interactive behavior with the device carried over to behavior with humans (Smith, 2002). Evidence from young children raised long term in socially deficient environments (e.g., Carlson & Earls, 1997) where human care, contact, and interaction are minimal indicates that these children’s brain development, social skills, and cognition all are negatively affected. Because technology-augmented devices such as cell phones and electronic tablets provide iconic rather than enactive cognitive experiences, young children who spend a greater proportion of time interacting with such devices rather than being engaged in enactive social experiences with parents, teachers, siblings, or other children may have brains that are structured differently or less richly and thus their developmental progress might have some characteristics of young children who have been raised in socially deficient environments.
It also is presently unclear whether there will be differences in young children’s brain development if early experiences are primarily with virtual materials that emphasize iconic and symbolic interactions. However, it is already common for parents to report that their children, who have had electronic phone or tablet experiences, press their finger on the TV screen or on pictures in magazines, thinking that the images can be activated that way. Thus, their interactive motor schemes seemed to have been affected by their technology-augmented experiences. If one of the potential effects of a technology-augmented environment is the diminishment of time spent in human interactions, children might have different configurations of the parts of the brain that encode social and emotional behavior, as well as different cognitive understanding of those behaviors. If, as Bruner suggested, enactive cognition is the first step in higher orders of cognition, the diminishment or reconfiguration of enactive cognition may result in other cognitive variations. The theorists who have discussed “embodied cognition” have speculated that sensorimotor experiences may underlie cognitive processes at all age levels (Wilson, 2002). Thus, the loss of such “real-world” cognition could have effects not only in early childhood but at all age levels. A recent study ( Jirout & Newcombe, 2015) of parents’ reports of their 4- to 7-year-olds’ types of play supports this view. The researchers found that the children’s amount of spatial play (i.e., playing with puzzles, blocks, and board games) was positively associated with their spatial cognitive skills even when other variables such as gender, socioeconomic status, family income and education, and general intelligence were controlled.
During the preschool age period, growth in social and emotional control, as well as moral, language, and cognitive understanding are extensive, and synaptic density continues to increase, indicating that with every experience, young children’s brains are becoming more densely configured. Thus, whatever experiences they are having, whether it is pretending with dolls, blocks, and cars, or pressing electronic tablets to see designs or activate actions, their brains will be incorporating these experiences and neuronal connections will be getting stronger in those areas where the most action is occurring. Recent research to improve Head Start children’s emotional understanding and control has shown that a method involving active learning through structured “make-believe” play activities produced positive impacts on the children’s emotion knowledge but did not improve their executive functioning skills (Morris et al., 2014). Whether longer-term imaginative play would increase these control skills is presently unknown, and whether exposure to emotionally focused content on digital devices would affect such skills is in need of research. However, the themes of the pretense also are crucial because there is a great deal of research showing that children who watch violent television and online programs are more likely to have violent themes in their play (Levin, 2013, 2015).
Cognitive processes such as memory development have extensive growth during the preschool years as the primary brain areas for memory activation mature and become myelinated. Because young children’s brains engage in making synaptic connections with their every experience, it is reasonable to conclude that the brains of children who have play experiences that are different from the play of children in the past will be configured differently. These new configurations may be useful in the future society; however, whether behaviors that are useful in natural environments or in nonvirtual human interactions will be lost as such technological experiences become even more pervasive is a question of interest. Recently the Sesame Workshop (Neary, 2014) created a game called “Big Bird’s Words,” designed for smartphones, which is an app that turns into a “wordascope.” The goal is to show children how words are related by having a “word tree.” When children access some words, other related words also appear. Designers expect the game to require some parent involvement with the smartphone to prevent its use “as a baby sitter.” This concern is prevalent in the view of child development specialists because they are concerned that parent-child interaction will diminish if these media supplant human interaction.
According to Lee (2015), early childhood educators also will need to make some revisions in their teaching methods in order to use digital media effectively. Lee states that, because these media now are “pervasive” in young children’s lives and they generate high levels of child interest, they can increase the motivation for learning for children from all backgrounds. If learning can be more engaging and enjoyable through the use of technology-augmented playful devices, children’s ability to attend to and gain understanding of academic skills in particular might increase. Lee gives examples of how such devices can be used in playful ways both with individual children and small groups while also maintaining appropriate levels of educator-child-child interactions.
In regard to the affordances of these digital devices, although the behaviors used to activate such technology-augmented play materials may be transparent in relation to the device features, this type of transparency may not be relevant for helping children understand or engage in human social interaction behaviors. The devices also may provide narrower challenge experiences than traditional play materials and be less socially accessible, providing diminished social experiences with other humans. In particular, a pervasive technology-augmented environment during the earliest period of brain development may result in human brains that are more responsive to technological interactions than to human interactions. Certainly, this would not occur with moderate use of such devices as long as there were still many opportunities for human enactive experiences as well as iconic and symbolic ones. However, if such interactive devices replace human interaction, there could be definite consequences on early brain development and subsequently on human social, emotional, moral, and cognitive development.
Presently there is no long-term research that can shed light on the effects of these newest technology-augmented devices. However, there are some reports of long-term cognitive and social effects of extensive television exposure. For example, Lillard and Peterson (2011) found differences in preschool children’s planning and self-control abilities when they experienced fast-paced television cartoons as compared with slower educational programs and picture drawing. Another study that examined relationships between exposure to violent television viewing when children were 2 to 5 years of age and their antisocial behavior at ages 7 to 10 found that for boys, there was a relationship. Viewing of violent programming by preschool boys was associated with subsequent aggressive behavior (Christakis & Zimmerman, 2007). Longitudinal studies of such differences among children with high and low exposure to technology-augmented toys, electronic tablets, and other virtual media are needed in order to understand the possible differences in brain development in the future. One possibility is that they will be more effectively adapted to a world where virtual experiences and technology-augmented devices are pervasively used. For example, when they grow old they may be more open to having robot caregivers (Aronson, 2014). Especially in early childhood there is no question that the dynamic systems of brain development, play development, and technology innovation will be affected by these changes, especially in regard to such dynamic factors as sensitive dependence on initial conditions, phase shifts, nonlinearity, plasticity, recursion, and attractor states.
Much will depend on what mix of play experiences young children continue to enjoy. If technology-augmented play enlarges their repertoire of social behaviors and cognitive skills in the virtual and symbolic dimensions but they continue to maintain enough “real-world” enactive experiences to keep them learning from those experiences, then their brains may be even more richly connected and their potential creative thought even more elaborated. However, if these newer types of play supplant earlier ones, then their brains may be designed quite differently from those of children of the past, although appropriately configured for the future.
As noted earlier, although the primary period for brain synaptogenesis and initial pruning occurs during early childhood, the age periods from 6 to 12 and from 13 to 21 also are ones in which play activities and other experiences can strongly affect brain development. During the childhood age period synaptogenesis and myelination continue to occur, although not at the same pace as in earlier years. At about age 7 the frontal lobe is at its highest synaptic density and pruning of brain areas that are used less extensively begins to occur. Memory and other intellectual processes such as problem solving gain in speed and efficiency as myelination and pruning advance. More individualization of brain structures occur during this period as children’s experiences become more focused. During this period, the range, intensity, and types of children’s experiences can influence the brain’s growth in many areas, such as number of dendrites, configuration of synapses, and processes of myelination (Eliot, 1999).
In the years before puberty, there is a peak in growth rates of the association and language cortical areas, and the corpus callosum, which connects the brain hemispheres, also grows extensively. According to Thompson and Nelson (2001), “The brain regions most relevant to higher cognition, including reasoning and problem solving, self-regulation, personality, and strategic functioning, have a maturational course extending into adolescence”(p. 10). The areas of the adolescent brain that are not completely mature include the insula and others areas of the limbic system such as the amygdala and hippocampus. Since these areas are related to emotional control, risk assessment, and emotional reactivity, they may be especially sensitive to experiences that involve those types of skills (Baird et al., 1999), and technology-augmented play that focuses on activities related to these areas of the brain may be more likely to affect brain development in later childhood and adolescence.
Because pruning also becomes extensive during this period and the more- often-used skills or activities gain stronger connections while less-used ones do not maintain strong brain connections, the range of playful experiences and consequent breadth of social, emotional, and cognitive growth may differ greatly among elementary age children and adolescents. When this specialization occurs, those with high- or low-technology-augmented play or different types of such play (e.g., creative programming, violent video games, Instagram use) all may have brains that are configured in quite different ways.
There are a number of potential social, emotional, moral, and cognitive developmental issues that may be affected by extensive use of augmented play materials. Some of these have potentially positive and some potentially negative consequences. Attributes such as empathy may be reduced when it is so easy for the individuals to detach from reality and embody a virtual existence. Their increased ability to compartmentalize experiences thus may reduce their need to consider others or to engage in activities related to the “common good.” In particular, children who may have difficulties in other areas of their lives may think, “no worries because I’ll just go home and play ‘The Sims’ on my computer.” Instead of grappling with day-to-day issues and mastering problems that need to be addressed, it is tempting to “live another life” on the computer. Not surprisingly, the fantasy game Kim Kardashian: Hollywood™ in which players live glamorous virtual lives is “among the top 10 most recently downloaded apps for the iPhone, according to Apple” (Wortham, 2014).
Reports of bullying and social exclusion on various social media venues also have become of concern (see Hinduja & Patchin, 2007; Juvonen & Gross, 2008; Katzer, Fetchenhauer, & Belschak, 2009) and it seems that when social experiences are virtual rather than in face-to-face social settings, young people have more difficulty in evaluating the effects of their social and emotional responses. For example, there is evidence that even young girls may show “relational aggression” that involves excluding other girls from friendships (Reddy, 2014). This behavior appears to be greatly extended in much online communication, especially among girls. Similarly there has been concern expressed about young people supplanting physical encounters with “virtual quasi relations,” including online casual sex (Wayne, 2014). When young people spend less time in the enactive “real-world” level of interaction, their ability to be synchronized in communication and emotional tone may be more difficult. On the other hand, if virtual interactions will become the more common mode of playful interaction, perhaps these skills will be learned and better communicated in virtual environments.
Perhaps their early childhood technology-augmented play will increase the likelihood that older children will choose virtual experiences in lieu of real experiences, leading to a reduction in their valuing of real-world experiences. For example, they may question why it would be good to go camping when bugs might be present, learn to ski or swim since these activities take physical practice, or even play games outside with other children. Piaget’s view (1965) that higher levels of moral development are gained by child-child discussions of fairness during their game play would suggest that if children grow up without the opportunity to engage in face-to-face interactions that permit discussions of the fairness of the rules of their social games, their moral development and the values of the society might be negatively affected. Similarly, children may grow into adults who think that the virtual tour of the Machu Picchu is a replacement for the real experience. Even more significant is the idea that when the opportunity to visit Machu Picchu presents itself, the individuals are likely to refuse on the basis of prior experience, albeit via the virtual tour. In essence, they would believe “I’ve already seen that.”
As children and adolescents rely more and more on virtual experiences such as texting, blogging, and gaming, they may become less physically active and their social experiences may consist entirely of virtual interactions. This has already been a concern in television viewing and computer use (Wake, Hesketh, & Waters, 2003). Bauerlein (2008) has expressed concern that technology-augmented devices used by adolescents have not expanded their range of experiences but rather they have “contracted the horizon to themselves and the social scene around them” (p. 10). That is, he sees these adolescents as living in their own virtual world of social media, gaming, and superficial reading, which is thus isolating them from the culture of the larger society. He characterizes this world as “impoverished” rather than being expansive and growth producing. He concludes that present day young adults already are the “dumbest generation” because of their pervasive use of virtual rather than actual experiences.
A recent report in the New York Times (Wingfield, 2014) indicated that in the United States, fans of gaming are becoming avid spectators by watching E-Sports rather than playing themselves. They fill theaters to watch experts play other experts! This trend is also occurring in South Korea, indicating that even the activity of gaming is beginning to be a passive spectator sport with only “experts” playing the game (Wingfield, 2014). It is true that the new video gaming “sport” bears much similarity to any professional sport in terms of fans preferring to watch rather than play, as evidenced by the millions of “armchair quarterbacks” for American football. It is also true that cultural changes sometimes create uncertainty and fear, as exemplified by the Luddites. Thus, it may be that there is currently an overreaction to the idea of the video game culture becoming a more prominent feature in society. However, one argument against the rise of the gaming culture is that unlike other physical activities, young people can literally play video games all day and all night. Hence, the virtual experience has the potential to (and does so frequently) displace all other activities, both physical and otherwise. Normally, other sports involve limitations such as fatigue, but digital games, and to a large extent online play environments, have much fewer factors that force limits on how much an individual can engage in the task. Digital games and online play environments allow users to play until the proverbial “cows come home.” What the effect of such experiences will be on executive functioning skills such as planning and self-regulation is unknown at this time.
It is certainly possible, however, that technology-augmented play will have a role in enhancing older children’s creative and other cognitive skills. One proponent of technology who sees this possibility is Mitchel Resnick of the MIT Media Laboratory. In a recent chapter (Resnick, 2006) he said that computers should be thought of more as “paintbrushes” rather than as “television sets” because they are really a “medium for creative design and expression” (p. 192). He thinks that even though many adults see them as stifling creativity, he has an “alternate vision” and he describes a project in which children were encouraged to engage in designing machines and the computer programs that could operate them. Resnick is concerned about the polarization of opinions regarding technology-augmented play and comments, “we need to focus on the difference between activities that foster creative thinking and creative expression (whether they use high-tech, low-tech, or not-tech) and those that don’t” (p. 204).
One overwhelmingly positive outcome of the current situation, especially in terms of digital games and the “sports” being created, is the reduced emphasis on traditional male qualities such as strength and speed. It may be that the gaming “sport” is democratized at least for females, because there is no physical barrier to competing. This may also be the case for those with certain disabilities. According to Dell, Newton, and Petroff (2011), various types of assistive technologies can greatly expand both the educational and play experiences of children and adolescents with disabilities. Thus, technology may be a great source for increasing the active involvement of those with physical disabilities, in particular.
The issue of virtual experiences versus real experiences is also one that must be addressed by schools and colleges. Researchers interested in how well students learned information in college classes have found that although students who used computers to take notes did as well on factual test-taking items as did physical writing note-takers they performed less well on conceptual application questions (Mueller & Oppenheimer, 2014). It may be possible that memory storage may also be affected because with the advent of the internet most needed information can be found quickly rather than needing to be recalled from human memory. This is not the first time technological invention has affected memory. Foer (2011) has discussed how human memory activity changed with the invention of writing and reading because before that time, at least some community members (professional memorizers) carried extensive mental information about the entire history and relevant factual information of their society. Another cognitive skill affected by recent technology may be spatial knowledge of geographic features, which now may also be less detailed because of the extensive use of GPS systems. Rather than adults constructing map-like mental images of geographic space, even their spatial images may be more like those of young children who typically draw maps in relation to themselves, showing the personal route they have taken, that is, through the hall, through the living room, through the kitchen (Piaget & Inhelder, 1956).
Whether moral development will be negatively affected by virtual experiences is also a question of interest (Bergen & Davis, 2011; Bergen & Davis, 2013; Davis & Bergen, 2014), as many theorists have proposed strong theoretical links between social game play and moral issues, as well as experiences solving moral dilemmas in pretense. At least some studies have reported a possible diminishment of moral qualities. For example, a meta-analysis study by Konrath, O’Brien, and Hsing (2010) found that college students do not have as much empathy as they used to have, and they speculate that this loss is tied to the rise of electronic media use, which may cause young people “to care more about themselves and to interact less with real others” (p. 10). Gentile and Gentile (2008) have stated that moral behavior goals such as sharing, tolerance, and peaceful ways to resolve conflicts are in competition with goals from video games that encourage values such as “competition, aggression, acquisitiveness, and lust” (p. 137).
There are also current educational trends that are at the intersection of play and learning. Game-based learning, game design, gamification, as well as some forms of online learning seek to integrate various ideas about play into formal learning environments, although each of these approaches is distinct about which elements of games and play are integrated. Both game-based learning and game design directly involve digital games in an educational setting. Game-based learning often emphasizes the learning that is inherent within game play, such as with a player of “Call of Duty” who will develop historical knowledge in order to succeed in the game. By contract, game-design initiatives often emphasize the knowledge and skills that are required, and thus developed, through the process of creating a new game that may include technological knowledge as skills (e.g., coding), computation skills, or knowledge of a particular subject matter relevant to the game design. Gamification, however, does not include digital games specifically. Gamification is the integration of game-play elements in a formal learning environment. In a “gamified” class, for example, a student may not complete an assignment for a letter grade, but rather would complete a “level” in order to advance to the next level in the class, a transition known as “leveling up.” Many online learning resources also use elements of games or principles of gamification by designing learning activities around earning “badges” that represent an acquired skill or competency. In many cases, these digital “badges” are considered real-world credentials of a particular skill.
The integration and intersection between games and learning can have both positive and negative influence on learning and brain development. On one hand, using elements of game play to enhance engagement in the learning process can be a very powerful educational tool. However, this also requires creativity, knowledge, and experience in areas that may not be widely valued for educators as well as flexibility within the learning environment that is often limited due to current trends towards increased testing and measurement. In order to successfully integrate games and learning, educators must be able to address Resnick’s (2006) call to see technology game play more as a means of enhancing creativity rather than a means of controlling thinking. For example, game play in a game such as Minecraft that has no predefined objective is drastically different than game play in other genres. Further, knowledge and skills that are gained through designing a game is vastly different than what may be gained through more traditional learning environments. Understanding the ways in which learning occurs differently through game play is essential to successful use of games or game-play concepts in teaching and learning environments.
The factors that influence the meaningful use of technologies such as digital games in teaching and learning has be explored from perspectives such as the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework (Koehler & Mishra, 2009) and self-efficacy beliefs regarding technology use in teaching and learning (Abbitt, 2011; Abbitt & Klett, 2007; Albion, 1999, 2001). Undoubtedly, there are many factors that influence the ways in which educators consider technology-enhanced learning. With respect to digital games and learning, it is expected that the ways in which learning will benefit from games and game-based learning will change dramatically if those who are entering the field of education are also active “gamers” with personal experience in the playing of games that informs their concept of a meaningful learning environment.
It also could be the case that the technology-augmented play environment will enhance human abilities that are needed in the future and create a more positive world for all humans. For example, current play with technology-augmented playthings may be very beneficial because individuals may develop proficiency in both the real and virtual worlds, and have the ability to move seamlessly between environments and also use the capabilities of one to test for the other. Thus, if individuals are socially introverted, they might use video games such as The Sims as a testing area to experiment or try different activities and personas, in an effort to see the consequences. This play might inform them about what may or may not be advisable in the real world. One instance where the virtual world informed the real world was in a “Corrupted Blood” incident in the game World of Warcraft. In this instance, a glitch in the game resulted in the spread of a plague, the result of which drew stark comparisons to what would happen if a similar event happened in real life (Lofgren & Fefferman, 2007). This game incident prompted scholars to look seriously at the virtual world as a possible testing area for dealing with real-world phenomena.
Similarly, video games have been shown to have a positive effect on response time (Dye et al., 2009). Technology-focused play also might enhance performance in physical activities such as sports. That is, games may act as viable models for young athletes to follow. For example, given the popularity and fidelity of games such as the FIFA and Madden NFL series from EA Sports, it is conceivable that, controlling for confounding variables, athletes playing these video games might perform better than those who do not play these games. Research has already shown that video games can have benefits in terms of visual processing (Green & Bavelier, 2007), but they may also provide benefits in terms of overall performance. Because high-fidelity sports-related video games have technical and tactical advantages that illustrate what is technically possible and effective (i.e., in moves by the exceptional players), they can allow the ordinary player to make tactical choices that can then be interpreted and executed in real-life matches. The video games in this case act as models for performance and motivation when young players have video game experiences and then try to create similar experiences in the real world. A number of recent articles have also pointed out training for war has changed with the advent of technology-augmented devices.
Technology has a significant effect on many aspects of human life, including warfare (Miller, 2012). The U.S. military is tremendously capable in part because it has access to advanced technologies that allow it to accomplish tasks that other countries cannot. Soldiers in the U.S. military, consequently, have additional requirements because they must be able to effectively use technologies that give them an advantage in the field. Interacting with these technologies is extremely important and it is might be the case that soldiers who grew up in technology-rich environments might be more suited to modern warfare systems that are technology-intensive. An example is the Common Remotely Operated Weapons Station, or CROWS 2 system, which allows soldiers to remain safe within an armored structure while controlling the weapon system remotely. The control and interaction are based on the video-game metaphor, but the consequences of using the system are very real. It is conceivable that current play with technology-augmented playthings will result in individuals specifically adapted to using those tools in the future. For example, one study indicated that video game experience enhanced participants’ performance on combat identification tasks (Keebler et al., 2014) Thus, future soldiers will possess the required skills necessary to function on the technology- and media-rich battlefield of future.
However, the psychological costs will probably be as much an issue then as it is now. Currently, there is much concern about the remote warfare capabilities of the U.S. military and the effect it has on soldiers. For example, research involving pilots of unmanned aerial vehicles or “drones” have shown that they are susceptible to Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) despite the fact that they are not necessarily in harm’s way (Chappelle et al., 2014; Miller, 2012). In essence, current play involving technology might select a developmental path suited for the future battlefield, but it is unclear that current play will also select a path where individuals develop the emotional structures necessary to cope with the future battlefield.
Play has the potential to change the brain, and humans have the ability to purposefully change the environment. It is thus prudent, given current play patterns, to consider what the future might be like in terms of physical and social structures. From a physical standpoint, questions of representation may become important as the virtual world becomes more ubiquitous and more accepted as “real.” For example, in a future populated by technology-motivated individuals, it might be commonplace for students to attend a class lecture delivered by a hologram of the professor. Or, individuals may be comfortable maintaining a long-distance relationship using a humanoid robot under the control of the remotely located partner. In this case, the robot is acting as a proxy for a real human, performing all associated tasks. There are already “smart home” technologies being marketed.
Social structures may also be significantly changed given current patterns of technology-mediated play. Future societies may grapple with issues such as the “rights” of an avatar or virtual persona. Although there is growing concern regarding issues such as identity theft, there is less concern over issues such as theft of virtual goods, particularly when crimes are committed within a game environment. Future societies will need to answer questions involving virtual property and the idea of culpability in the virtual world. Issues become even more complex when artificial intelligence is considered. Future societies may need to be comfortable with the idea of artificially intelligent agents receiving credit and being held accountable for actions performed in either the real or virtual world.
In the book Brave New World (Huxley, 1932), a society is described in which only a small number of individuals are involved in creative, productive, and decision-making work while the rest of the caste-like population is “happily” controlled by drugs and socially managed activities. Similarly, in the movie Wall-E, most humans are passive drone-like creatures just concerned with their own pleasures. Some of the more recent predictions of the world of the future suggest that only those humans with high levels of technology skills will have creative and productive lives, while the rest of the human species will be controlled by technological devices. Whether the trends in technology-augmented play are leading to such a division in human society is unknown at this time. However, the potential long-term effects of pervasive levels of technology-augmented play are in need of much research and discussion. As noted earlier, when predicting the future, the salience and strength of various data points can vary greatly in the futurists’ view. Thus, the negative perspectives of some writers may be giving too much weight to factors that may not be as powerful as other more positive factors and vice versa.
There are many future predictions that envision a wonderful world enhanced by technological advances. For example, Scott (2014) envisions a world that has a range of useful or even “magical” technologies that could solve the world hunger problem, reverse aging, and free humans of the “archaic idea” of work. He suggests that the future might result in humans being relieved of all onerous activities and being enabled to focus their lives on artistic, cognitive, and scientific pursuits. Scott indicates that the future will be formed by humans visualizing their desires and preferences, as well as their fears, and suggests that in the coming years, the ways humans visualize their desires, preferences, and fears will be major factors in determining how such expanding technology affects human play and subsequently human brain development, social interactions, emotional life, moral choices, and cognitive powers.
A central point of the authors of this book is that the expanding technology that has created many new and enhanced play opportunities for children is influencing traditional aspects of the play of infants, young children, older children, and adolescents and thus, it will be affecting their developmental trajectories potentially in both positive and negative ways. The task of parents, educators, toy product designers, virtual play creators, and the community as a whole is to be cognizant of such effects, to continually monitor the effects, and to try to make these new play opportunities brain developmentally rich and growth-enhancing as well as relevant for the world of the future.
FIGURE 5.1 Just checking the latest Pinterest!
FIGURE 5.2 I’m contacting all my friends on Instagram.
FIGURE 5.3 This is my favorite computer game.
FIGURE 5.4 Engaged with my favorite Xbox game.
Abbitt, J. T. (2011). An investigation of the relationship between self-efficacy beliefs about technology integration and technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) among preservice teachers. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 27(4), 134–143.
Abbitt, J. T., and Klett, M. (2007). Identifying influences on attitudes and self-efficacy beliefs towards technology integration among pre-service educators. Electronic Journal for the Integration of Technology in Education, 5, 28–42.
Albion, P. (1999). Self-efficacy beliefs as an indicator of teachers’ preparedness for teaching with technology. Paper presented at the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education Conference, Norfolk, VA. http://www.editlib.org/index.cfm/files/paper_8156.pdf?fuseaction=Reader.DownloadFullText&paper_id=8156
Albion, P. R. (2001). Some factors in the development of self-efficacy beliefs for computer use among teacher education students. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 9(3), 321–347.
Aronson, L. (2014). The future of robot cargivers. New York Times, 7/20, p. 4 sr.
Baird, A. A., Gruber, S. A, Fein, D. A., Maas, L. C., Steingard, R. J., & Renshaw, J. F. (1999). Functional magnetic resonance imaging of facial affect recognition in children and adolescents. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 2, 195–199.
Bauerlein, M. (2008). The dumbest generation: How the digital age stupefies young Americans and jeopardizes our future (or, don’t trust anyone under 30). New York: Penguin.
Bergen, D. & Davis, D. (2011). Influences of technology-related playful activity and thought on moral development. American Journal of Play, 4(1), 80–99.
Bergen, D. & Davis, D. (2013). Playful activity and thought as the medium for moral development: Implications for moral education. In B. J. Irby, G. Brown, R. Lara-Alecio, & S. Jackson (Eds.) and R. A. Robles-Pinã (Sect. Ed.), The handbook of educational theories (pp. 653–666). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Bradbury, R. (1953/1991). Fahrenheit 451. New York: Del Rey.
Bruner, J. S. (1964). The course of cognitive growth. American Psychologist, 19(1), 1–15.
Burgess, A. (1962/1987). A clockwork orange. (Reprint). New York: W. W. Norton.
Butler S. (1921). Erewhon. London: Jonathan Cape.
Carlson, M., & Earls, F. (1997). Psychological and neuroendocrinolgical sequelae of early social deprivation in institutionalized children in Romania. In C. S. Carter, I. I. Lederhendler, & B. Kirkpatrick (Eds.), The integrative Eurobiology of affiliation (pp. 419–428). New York: New York Academy of Sciences.
Chappelle, W., Swearengen, J., Goodman, T., & Thompson, W. (2014). Personality Test Scores that Distinguish US Air Force Remotely Piloted Aircraft Drone Pilot Training Candidates (No. AFRL-SA-WP-TR-2014–0001). School of Aerospace Medicine, Wright Patterson AFB.
Christakis, D. A., & Zimmerman, F. J. (2007). Violent television viewing during preschool is associated with antisocial behavior during school age. Pediatrics, 120(5), 993–999.
Davis, D., & Bergen, D. (2014). Relationships among play behaviors reported by college students and their responses to moral issues: A pilot study. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 28, 484–498.
Dell, A. G., Newton, D., & Petroff, J. G. (2011). Assistive technology in the classroom: Enhancing the school experiences of students with disabilities. Boston: Pearson Higher Ed.
Dye, M., Green, S., & Bavelier, D. (2009). Increasing speed of processing with action video games. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18(6), 321–326.
Eliot, L. (1999). What’s going on in there: How the brain and mind develop in the first five years of life. New York: Bantam.
Ellis, M. J. (1998). Play and the origin of the species. In D. Bergen (Ed.), Readings from play as a learning medium (pp. 29-31). Olney, MD: ACEI.
Foer, J. (2011). Moonwalking with Einstein: The art and science of remembering everything. New York: Penguin.
Gentile, D. A., & Gentile, J. R. (2008). Violent Video Games as Exemplary Teachers: A Conceptual Analysis. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37(2), 127–141.
Green, C. S., & Bavelier, D. (2007). Action-video-game experience alters the spatial resolution of vision. Psychological Science, 18(1), 88–94.
Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2007). Offline consequences of online victimization: School violence and delinquency. Journal of School Violence, 6(3), 89–112.
Huxley, A. (1932). Brave new world. London/Garden City, NY: Chatto & Windus/Doubleday, Doran & Co.
Jirout, J. J., & Newcombe, N. S. (2015). Building blocks for developing spatial skills: Evidence from a large, representative US sample. Psychological Science, 1–9.
Joy, B. (2000). Why the future doesn’t need us. In F. Allhoff, P. Lin, J. Moor, & J. Weckert (Eds.), Nanoethics–the ethical and social implicatons of nanotechnology (pp. 17–39). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Juvonen, J., & Gross, E. F. (2008). Extending the school grounds?—Bullying experiences in cyberspace. Journal of School Health, 78(9), 496–505.
Katzer, C., Fetchenhauer, D., & Belschak, F. (2009). Cyberbullying: Who are the victims?: A comparison of victimization in internet chatrooms and victimization in school. Journal of Media Psychology: Theories, Methods, and Applications, 21(1), 25.
Keebler, J., Jentsch, F., & Schuster, D. (2014). The effects of video game experience and active stereoscopy on performance in combat identification tasks. Human Factors, 56(8), 1482–1496.
Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60–70.
Konrath, S. H., O’Brien, E. H., & Hsing, C. (2010). Changes in dispositional empathy in American college students over time: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15, 180–198.
Kurzweil, R. (2005). The singularity is near: When humans transcend biology. New York: Penguin.
Lee, L. (2015). Young children, play, and technology: Meaningful ways of using technology and digital media. In D. P. Fromberg & D. Bergen (Eds.), Play from birth to twelve (3rd ed., pp. 217–224). New York: Routledge.
Levin, D. (2013). Beyond remote-controlled childhood: Teaching young children in the media age. Washington, DC: NAEYC.
Levin, D. (2015). Technology play concerns. In D. Fromberg & D. Bergen (Eds.) Play from Birth to Twelve (3rd. ed) (pp. 225–232). New York: Routledge.
Lillard, A. S., & Peterson, J. (2011). The immediate impact of different types of television on young children’s executive function. Pediatrics, 128(4), 644–649.
Lofgren, E. T., & Fefferman, N. H. (2007). The untapped potential of virtual game worlds to shed light on real world epidemics. The Lancet Infectious Diseases, 7(9), 625–629.
Miller, A. (2012). A taxonomy of mixed reality visual displays. IE-ICE Transactions on Information and Systems (Special Issue on Networked Reality), vol. E77-D, no.12, 1321–1329, 1994.
More, T. (1516). Utopia. Oxford: University of Oxford.
Morris, P., Mattera, S. K., Castells, N., Bangser, M., Bierman, K., & Raver, C. (2014). Impact findings from the Head Start CARES Demonstration: National evaluation of three approaches to improving preschoolers’ social and emotional competence. OPRE Report 2014–44. Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Mueller, P. A., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2014). The pen is mightier than the keyboard: Advantages of longhand over laptop note taking. Psychological Science, 25(6), 1159–1168.
Neary, L. (2014). Vocab-intensive for toddlers encourages anytime, anywhere learning. NPR, Dec. 31.
Orwell, G. (1949/1981). Nineteen eighty-four. New York: Signet.
Outlook 2015: Top trends and forecasts for the decade ahead. The Futurist, 48(6), 1–10.
Piaget, J. (1965). The moral judgment of the child. New York: Norton.
Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1956). Child’s conception of space. London: Routledge, Kegan Paul.
Pinker, S. (2014). The village effect. New York: Spiegel & Grau.
Plato. (380 BC). Republic (1974) translator G. M. A. Grube. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Co.
Reddy, S. (2014, May 27). Very little and acting mean. Wall Street Journal, pp. D1, D4.
Resnick, M. (2006). Computer as paintbush: Technology, play, and the creative society. In D. G. Singer, R. M. Golinkoff, & K. Hirsh-Pasek (Eds.), Play = Learning: How play motivates and enhances children’s cognitive and social-emotional growth. New York: Oxford University Press.
Saby, J. N., Marshall, P. J., & Meltzoff, A. N. (2012). Neural correlates of being imitated: An EEG study in preverbal infants. Social Neuroscience, 7(6), 650–661.
Saby, J. N., Meltzoff, A. N., & Marshall, P. J. (2013). Infants’ somatotopic neural responses to seeing human actions: I’ve got you under my skin. PLOS ONE, 8(10), e77905.
Schonfeld, Z. (2014, Dec. 18). Everything “Back to the Future Part II” got right and wrong about 2015, according to futurists. Newsweek. http://www.newsweek.com/everthing-back-future-ii-got-hilariously-wrong-about-2015-according-293272
Scott, G. (2014). Visualizing the future. The Futurist, 48(4), 20–23.
Smith, C. R. (2002). Click on me! An example of how a toddler used technology in play. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 2(1), 5–20.
Thompson, R. A. & Nelson, C. A. (2001). Developmental science and the media: Early brain development. American Psychologist, 56(1), 5–15.
Van Hise, J. (1992). Man who created Star Trek: Gene Roddenberry. Movie Publisher Services.
Wake, M., Hesketh, K., & Waters, E. (2003). Television, computer use and body mass index in Australian primary school children. Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health, 39(2), 130–134.
Wayne, T. (2014, Nov. 9) Swiping them off their feet. Future Tense, New York Times, p. 14.
We, Y. (1921/1924). Zamyatin. New York: E. P. Dutton.
Wilson, M. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(4), 625–636.
Wingfield, N. (2014, Aug. 31). Virtual games draw real crowds and big money. New York Times, pp. 1, 13.
Wortham, J. (2014). Living like Kardashians, via Smartphone. New York Times, August 10, BU3.