Multiple Intelligences (MI) Theory - A Way Forward in Pedagogy

Have you ever wondered if your child is smart? Did you assume that your child isn't intelligent because he/she did not have the best score in school or an IQ test? 

I'm sure most of you will answer 'yes' for the above question. But don't worry. I'm not here to judge you for thinking so. I would say it was only natural that you had these doubts in mind because today's society claims such standards for intelligence. However, what if I told you it's time to forget these standards? What if someone worked hard to prove (at least theoretically) that there is no one intelligence but plenty? 

Well, that someone is Howard Gardner. He is an American developmental psychologist who believed in the concept of Multiple Intelligences (MI). With this belief, Gardner postulated the MI theory with which he proved that a person could have more than one type of intelligence; in fact, eight in total. 

Gardner accuses our current psychometric tests and instruments of measuring only for a general intelligence using short-answer and paper-and-pencil tests. He takes the example of an uneducated sailor, who from a young age, learns to sail, build boats and navigate rough seas until he finally masters the skill. How do we measure the intelligence of this sailor? He cannot read, write or talk about velocity and vectors (concepts physics students may use to assess the technique and methods of sailing). But he knows to sail, and if I wear to compete with him in a sea race, I'd probably drown. 

In addition, Gardner regards a person's intelligence or mental capacity to be highly reflective of their cultural and social background. For example, my parents are both doctors who are very vocal with me about their practices. If my friend from college and I were to take a simple test about the basic functioning of a hospital, I would obviously score more than her. Now, would you call my friend stupid and me intelligent? No. You'd agree that I knew more because of my parents. Similarly, just because a person with an above-average educational background was able to score well in those intelligence tests (which they will too), doesn't mean they are smarter than the other uneducated person who took the same test. Circumstances and settings matter. 

Therefore, Gardner claims it is necessary to change the way we perceive intelligence. In his book Frames of Mind, first published in 1983, Gardner outlines seven intelligences (an 8th intelligence was added in a later edition) that give a holistic view of people's talents, abilities and mental capacities. 

1. Linguistic Intelligence
2. Logical-Mathematical Intelligence
3. Musical Intelligence
4. Spatial Intelligence
5. Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence
6. Interpersonal Intelligence
7. Intrapersonal Intelligence
8. Naturalistic Intelligence

(An explanation of all the above intelligences is given shortly and crisply here: https://www.verywellmind.com/gardners-theory-of-multiple-intelligences-2795161. I recommend you quickly give it a read before continuing reading my article.)

Now, after reading about these intelligences, it is highly crucial not to assume that a person will only be well-versed in one of the above. This would mean you also fall under the misconception that there is only a singular intelligence. Gardner ascertains that an individual can have a combination of the said intelligences, wherein one or two may be pronounced, maybe not. And it is also important to accept that there may be more/newer intelligences still unexplored. Hence the point is, there can be several permutations and combinations of these intelligences to form a person's profile, which makes their intelligence and therefore skills, talents and services unique. 

If you think Gardner stopped at merely theorising this concept of Multiple Intelligences, you are wrong. Since the years following the first publication of the MI book to this day, Gardner has explored and assisted many in experimenting with MI. He mainly showed keen interest in those who wanted to transform pedagogy in the lines of the theory. In Frames of Mind, he quotes his colleague David Rose: "As Rose puts it, we should not think of students as disabled; we should instead consider whether our curricula may be disabled." 

According to Gardner, any educator who believes in MI theory must Individualise and Pluralise.

Individualising: it is an educator's responsibility to understand his/her students on a profile-to-profile basis and must teach in a way every child's capacity is brought out. 

Pluralising: the educator must also decide which topics and concepts are of utmost importance to help his/her students gain maximum knowledge and ensure that these are taught in a variety of ways. 

Of course, such levels of understanding and cooperation is near to impossible in today's classrooms filled with 30-40 children. But, with smaller classes and smaller schools, this can prove to be very rewarding. Gardner calls such schools "individual-centred school". Such schools will not only match every child's specific intelligences but also ensure they are exposed to educational opportunities outside of a school set up. 

Nevertheless, Gardner points out one of the dangers of misinterpreting the theory. He firmly declares that "multiples intelligences should not be an educational goal", i.e., we must not impose the need for children to possess a particular set of the said intelligences or force the criterion on the students. More importantly, having or "mastering" these intelligences must not be the sole purpose of the change in the pedagogy. A child's education must reflect their values and societal needs. 

Such misrepresentations are a reason why he also acknowledged the practical limitations of the theory and the need for more research in the field of MI in education. Yet, regardless of the shortcomings, misconceptions and criticisms (which were plenty), I strongly feel the need to begin a conversation or thought about the advantages of having an MI-styled education system. 

With that being said, I wish to end with a quote by Gardner: 

"I want my children to understand the world, but not just because the world is fascinating, and the human mind is curious. I want them to understand it so that they will be positioned to make it a better place."

References:

• Cherry, Kendra. "Gardner's Theory of Multiple Intelligences." Verywell Mind, 17 July 2019, www.verywellmind.com/gardners-theory-of-multiple-intelligences-2795161.
• Gardner, Howard. Frames of Mind: the Theory of Multiple Intelligences. BasicBooks, 2011.

What is a Poem?

"Poetry is the art of all arts 
Poetry is the spontaneous 
Poetry is the criticism of life 
Poetry is the nurse of abuse so, 
Poetry is not a luxury

Poetry is the language of imagination and passion 
Poetry is simply the first and last of all knowledge."

If you're wondering who wrote this poem, ask Google. No. Literally, ask Google. These were some of the "phrases" that appeared when I typed in "Poetry is" on a Google search box. I merely pieced some of them together to give it some flow. I may have tweaked it in some places to create some drama. But frankly, this "poem" is something taken out of algorithms generated by the internet due to previous searches. You may be outraged then, by my audacity to call something so mechanically produced a piece of art. I wouldn't say you were wrong to do so. To each his own. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, and there is freedom of speech in this country - or that's the hope, so why can't I call this a poem?

I wouldn't be too surprised if I am the only one asking this question. I'm sure there is already some debate on the internet if Google Instant generated Google Poetics can be considered the new form of poetry. Well, I'm not going to start a similar discussion here, but I am intrigued by the prospects of such a notion. I recently read a quote by a French poet named Jean Cocteau. He wrote, "The poet is a liar who always speaks the truth". If I may apply the idea behind this quote to the automated mutant above I dare call a poem, even though a living being did not write the words, the meaning is still heartfelt. Riddle me this. If I had not mentioned that this poem was an internet experiment and had attributed it to an unknown poet, why even myself, I'm sure there would have been speculation and appreciation for it.

So I've come to understand that the value of a poem is with its audience. There is truth to its meaning when the reader relates to it. There are examples of poems being quite straightforward and devoid of any connotations. Robert Frost's poems like Stopping By Woods On A Snowy Evening, Mowing and The Cow In Apple Time, all portray deeper meanings about labour, making choices, be it good or bad, etc. Still, at face value, they are merely compositions reflecting a poet's perception of his natural settings and nothing more. Frost was one among the many poets whose works became legendary only many years after his death. In fact, people began to read between the lines of his poems - paralleling the works to the period of life during which he was writing them - only after they came to know of his struggles and the wisdom he obtained therefore. Sometimes it's hard not to wonder if he even wanted to manifest such profound insights to his words. For all we know, the man could simply have been commenting on the stupidity of a cow for eating too many apples, without macro-reflecting it into a life lesson!

Yet, I'm convinced that a poem is nothing if not human. A poem reflects a string of thoughts and emotions. It is a play on words. Someone once said nothing is accidental in a poem. Even the Google Poetics inspired piece I showcased above had some amounts of creative touches from my side. It was I who decided the order of the phrases, I who placed the commas and the conjunctions. Maybe it would have taken a tasteful shape even without my influence, maybe not. But my tweaks added value to the poem, in a way it made it mine and gave it the meaning I wanted to display. Therefore, to create poetry, there must be some love for the language, and admiration of the aesthetic qualities of words. I believe that the rhyming schemes, the number of syllables per line, repetitions and other poetic devices are of utmost importance to a poet.

In that sense, a poem can be devoid of its nature without its maker. Of course, a poem is nothing if not a sophisticated medium for conveying one's most cherished beliefs and secrets. A poem can be written as a cry for help, to profess love to someone or something, to take a stance or to stir radical ideas in people who read it. When I was a child, I thought a poem should always have a rhyming scheme and must most definitely be funny or joyous. Such an understanding stemmed from all the time spent listening to Karadi Rhymes. It was also because my childhood was always filled with happy memories. But as I grew up and began to experience events which created all kinds of memories of sadness, anger, pain, love, and so on, I realised the universality of poetic form. The poet who bestowed this consciousness unto me was a well-known nationalist poet of Tamil Nadu, Mahakavi Bharathi. I have, on several occasions, read and sung - more often the latter - his poems in public. Singing his verses has always made my blood boil with a mixture of anger and passion. His poetry made me recognise the beauty in creative expression and also appreciate the inspired manner of delivering political inclinations in composition form.

Most importantly, it taught me the ingenuity of acknowledging emotions; the need not to bottle them up but to feel them, endure them and rise above them. You see, I had always been a person who neglected negative thoughts/energy. But reading his poetry showed the benefits one gained from unravelling one's feelings and penning them down. And so I have recently taken up the task of writing poetry. I had dabbled with it previously but never with sincerity. Now I hope to grow from this endeavour.

Conflict Theory and the Indian Fair Skin Obsession

To understand the sociological causation behind Indian obsession over fairness, we need first to comprehend the definition of conflict theory. It is said that the German philosopher Karl Marx laid the foundations for the paradigm of conflict theory to emerge (Sweeney, 2017, 00:29). Marx believed in the forces of production and the labour that enabled it. Via his economic perspective on the functioning of the world, he stated that these forces created two groups of people: the Proletariat or the working class/labourers and the Bourgeoise or the middle class/property-owners. By presenting the existence of these two groups in the capitalist world, Marx introduced the idea of a "class conflict". He explained that the labour of the working class created a surplus in the economy which the property-owners gained as profits thereby leaving less in wage for the labourers leading them to revolt against the system. The class conflict concept served as the basic idea behind conflict theory; that in society, there will always be an arena of inequalities. This notion went unreservedly against the functionalist theory proposed by Durkheim and Comte (two other well-renowned sociologists), both of whom believed in a universal consensus for changes in society.

Born out of Marx's ideas were Antonio Gramsci, an Italian Marxist philosopher and communist politician, and his theory of hegemony (Sweeney, 2017, 09:25). Gramsci demonstrates the emergence of class tensions as a result of a hegemonic culture wherein a few dominant set of values and beliefs so permeate the society that they eventually become the norm. Due to the contributions of Marx and Gramsci, conflict theorists today regard social divisions and power struggles to be inquired continuously and to have great importance. They examine the workings of such inequalities that often create dominant groups and disadvantaged groups, which are entangled in endless power dynamics. They firmly believe that the norms that get created due to the influence of such dominant factors/groups exist all around us, especially having substantial impacts on gender, race, ethnicity and class, and help drive social change. That brings us to the discussion of colourism and Indians' obsession over fair skin.

Colourism is a prejudiced conviction against dark-skinned people. It arises out of the belief that white denotes purity and cleanliness, whereas darker shades indicate dirt and filth. Prof. Shehzad Nadeem in his work on the skin-lightening endeavours of India deliberates that colourism in the country dates back to the advent of the so-called fair-skinned Aryan race and their subjugation of the dark-skinned Dravidians (2014). The caste system, Jati, the Aryans introduced was said to be based on Varna or colour. It mandated that upper caste people like the Brahmins be fair while lower castes, Sudras, be dark (Nadeem, 2014). He reinstates that the preoccupation with fairness only intensified over time, especially with colonialism and the influence of the Mughals, Portuguese, Dutch and the British. He credits the British for creating the stereotype, through their delegation of work in government, that fair Indians were more intelligent and attractive whereas their darker counterparts dimwitted and ugly. Finally, Nadeem establishes that from the workings of these ideas put forth by invaders and colonisers, the race for fair skin began in the country. And today, its impact on the nation is appalling.

Unilever's Fair & Lovely for women and Emami's Fair & Handsom for men marked the age when the advertising industry and the corporate world began to play havoc with the innocent, vulnerable and anxious minds of the Indian middle class (2014). The colourist and underlyingly racist ads these beauty companies showcased on TVs and billboards, showed successful and fair celebrities/models promoting skin-whitening products that presumably allowed them to be happy and prosperous in their work environment, marriage and so on. The ads openly and unapologetically claimed that women wouldn't be attracted to dark men; dark women won't get jobs or good pay or worse get a prospective husband. By playing into deep-seated fears and insecurities, the ads permanently convinced their consumers of the importance and advantages of having fair skin. They encouraged consumers to stand-out and aspire to be like the privileged "other", asking them to "whitewash" themselves instead of helping whitewash the colourist prejudices and inequalities with their influential work (Nadeem, 2014).

Another huge contributor to fairness biases in the country is matrimonial sites. Two researchers from Seattle University conducted a study that investigated the profiles, preferences and success stories wedding photos of people signed into four Indian matrimonial websites (2009). Their findings showed the obvious: dark-skinned women were seen to be undesirable and invisible on the sites as potential life partners. The researchers profess that a few components of the web design itself may influence these results. First is the menu options that are colour discriminative with drop-down preferences for different shades of skin colour. The researchers claim that the very existence of such a layout itself would act as a cue for prospective suitors to begin thinking about skin tone even if they had previously not considered mentioning it in their requirements. Secondly, the profile pictures on potential brides' accounts and images of success stories play a huge role in indicating the types of women who receive the most number of suitors. The study's results showed that light-skinned brides in these virtual images immediately invalidated dark-skinned women's eligibility in the e-marriage market (Jha & Adelman, 2009).

Moreover, the prospects for a dark-skinned girl is more humiliating for her identity than just a rejection from a marriage service site. In his article, Nadeem exposes an interview conducted by NDTV, where an advertising agent talks about the difference between a dark and fair girl saying that the former he would "take to a hotel room" while the latter "to his mommy" (Nadeem, 2014). The above reinstates the age-old stereotype of dark being filthy, so you don't treat it with respect but do view it as sexy and sensuous whereas white being pure and therefore you consider it to be beautiful and pretty. Such re-telling of past prejudices has grown so out of control that in today's internet age, women and girls have shifted from the time-consuming and costly benefits of skin-bleaching products to Instagram and Snapchat filters that make them look fair, shiny and glamourous (Varghese, 2017). In hindsight, these trends expose a grave reality: no matter how much the world advances, biases and prejudices will follow parallel to such growth.

Therefore, Indians' obsession with fair skin emerges from the previously mentioned cultural hegemony based on underlying racist and classist colourism. It showcases an apparent dominant group, the fair-skinned upper-caste and upper-class Indians and the disadvantaged groups being the lower-caste people of darker complexion. Therefore, colourism has deep- rooted connections to a need for higher status, power and unfortunately, a side-effect of increased poverty lines. Also, the forces - like those in Marx's economic market model involving labourers and profiteers - that enable and strengthen such social divisions are the advertising industry, matrimonial sites and in recent years, social media. In Nadeem's words, these forces intensify "the profanely ordered stratification of class; the divinely ordained hierarchies of caste; the racially coded contours of the global system" (Nadeem, 2014, pg.228). But to blame this skin-based social evil solely on these forces is inconsiderate of history. These forces are able to thrive in creating such social tensions because they can leech off of our pre- existing prejudices, biases and fears to which they market their products and services. Hence, though conflict theory talks of the need for tension to enable social transformations, this race for fair-skin is anything but "social". This obsession stems from a narcissistic point of view of standing out and demonstrating a looking-down attitude towards individuality that is demeaning and demotivating to others who also are consumed unnecessarily into such a race. Conclusively, it is the class and caste-based discriminations of ancient times, that have created this dark skin prejudice up until current times. It is this conflict between the dark and the fair that also reflects the inequality between the rich and the poor in our country.

Bibliography

- Giddens, A., & Sutton, P. W. (2017). Chapter 1. In Sociology (8th ed., pp. 3–30). Atlantic Publishers & Distributors Pvt Ltd.

- Jha, S., & Adelman, M. (2009). Looking for Love in All the White Places: A Study of Skin Color Preferences on Indian Matrimonial and Mate-Seeking Websites. Studies in South Asian Film & Media, 1(1), 65–83. doi: 10.1386/safm.1.1.65_1

- Karl Marx & Conflict Theory: Crash Course Sociology #6. (2017). Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gR3igiwaeyc

- Nadeem, S. (2014). Fair and anxious: on mimicry and skin-lightening in India. Social Identities, 20(2-3), 224–238. doi: 10.1080/13504630.2014.881282

- Varghese, J. (2017). RESEARCH REPORT Fair (?) & Lovely: Ideas of beauty among young migrant women. Women's Studios, 31(1). 

Pandora's Boxes in the Hands of The Future

Did you know that children from wealthy families were said to have been "born with a silver spoon"?

My cousin brother was born with a Pandora's box instead. The box was there to take a picture of his parents holding him for the first time. It was there to entrance him with a video of The Gummy Bear song when he refused to eat. It was there when he was cranky; it was there to make him happy. Digital devices like smartphones and tablets compromised my brother’s childhood. He liked playing outdoors, but he loved the shiny and sleek Pandora's boxes! He would play the same games on the phone repeatedly. Engrossed in the phone, he would stop responding to people around him. Because his school wanted to introduce "enhanced learning", my brother got his very own iPad at seven years of age! The amount of time and effort he put into playing games and downloading apps on the tablet surprised me. There was a point when I even wondered if he was addicted. He became reticent, yet more aggressive due to all the fighter and racing games he played. I couldn't accept that he was wasting away his precious childhood in front of a screen, which was slowly turning him into a machine such as itself. There was even a time when I saw some disturbing content in the suggestions list on YouTube while he was watching a simulation game. I was horrified by the possibility of my brother's mind getting polluted. The thought of that possibility becoming a reality drew the line for me. 

Today, we are all living in a digital world. Though there is technology all around us, somehow it has proven incapable of solving urgent problems like Global Warming. We may leave the world before the system collapses, but our children will suffer because they are the future. If we want them to survive, then we need to nurture them in the right way. I know it would be impossible to start lecturing teenagers on the adverse effects of over-using technology. But there’s still hope with children. We can shape their future in the right way. So, if we are handing a smartphone or a tablet to a child, then we need to understand the consequences and act accordingly. 

I firmly believe that children below the age of ten should have restricted access to smartphones and tablets. 

By restricted access, I mean the amount of time the child spends using these devices at home, i.e., screen time. Writing from direct experience, I am convinced that excessive screen time can have adverse effects on young children. It can lead to difficulties in learning and communication, along with a decrease in social skills. Immoderate usage can also cause drastic behavioural changes. Online activity, of "digitalised kids" between five and ten years, can expose them to cyberbullying and undesirable content. At a very young age, children can become materialistic, thereby plunging into needless consumerism and identity crisis. Above all, essential parent-child relationships can deteriorate due to valuable time at home lost inside luring screens.

Dr Nicole Beurkens (2017), a clinical child psychologist, notes that "non-verbal (emotional) cues are a critical component of social communication, and deficits in this area create difficulties for children in forming relationships and communicating effectively with others." Supporting her observation, researchers from the Boston University School of Medicine suggest that children's over-indulgence in smart devices reduces their sensorimotor and visual-motor skills (Walters, 2015). Therefore, it becomes hard for digitalised kids to comprehend language and face-to-face interactions. Also, the researchers find that these kids show a weakening of higher-level cognitive skills needed for understanding subjects like math and science. According to Dr Beurkens these skills belong to executive functions of the brain, which gets impaired due to kids' particular overexposure to silly and fast-paced on-screen games (Beurkens, 2017). She also warns parents not to use mobiles and tablets to distract kids because not only do such tactics reduce their ability to self-regulate, but they also act as conversation-killers, especially among children of the same age. 

An extensive study of digitally-active three-year-olds and five-year-olds, conducted by a group of Canadian investigators, revealed the dominating effects that increased screen time had on the behaviour of these children (Tamana et al., 2019). Externalising problems such as inattention and aggression and internalising problems like depression, withdrawal and anxiety, seemed to have significantly affected those kids whose screen time was more than two hours every day. Contrastingly, they discovered that those children who spent the same amount of time in physical activities had almost no mental-health complications. The association of screen time with behavioural morbidities was higher than its effect on the kids' sleep patterns and parenting style. Hence, their study proves how easily a few extra hours can change the nature of a child: from cute to diabolic. 

If you're looking for an amusing take of the relationship between digital devices and children, then Dean Burnett, a doctor of neuroscience, is your guy. In his article in The Guardian, Burnett writes about the danger of having children around tablets; not the other way around. He is determined that, due to their incapacity to hold things, toddlers mainly are bound to drop/break these fragile and hard-to-repair gadgets, at least once (Burnett, 2015). Though this is a hilarious insight, it is essential to note the logic behind it: Don't give expensive devices to children unless you are Bill Gates! 

It would be ignorant of parents to assume that their kids' activity on smart devices is restricted to playing games and watching colourful YouTube videos. But, a survey taken in eleven countries presents many respondents expressing concern over their children's exposure to immoral and harmful content (Silver et al., 2019). It was only recently that an online-hoax called Momo Challenge threatened the lives of young children who fell into its traps. Moreover, physicians from the American College of Pediatricians affirm that a lot of kids have social media accounts by the age of ten. While online, they accidentally come across undesirable content, especially pornography ("The Impact of Media," 2016). The physicians assert that such perversion of innocent minds can induce early sexual attitudes and gender-stereotypical beliefs. Online activities further affect the morality of children. An article in the Journal of Social Science reports the impact cyberbullying has on all young minds associated with it. It claims that while the victims of internet harassment descend into depression, anxiety and low self-esteem, the bullies themselves succumb to risky behaviours and belligerence and the bystanders experience agitation and guilt (D'Antona et al., 2010). To avoid children underdoing such trauma, I would suggest parents monitor screen time heavily. When I found out that my brother was under the danger of exposure to illicit content, I immediately told his parents to install parental control on his device and switch his account to YouTube Kids. 

Back when mobile phones were emerging as a fad, the main reason why parents agreed to buy them for their children was for security purposes. A research paper based on Roy Morgan's Young Australians Survey concurs with this notion but informs that today the reasons for buying smartphones are fast-changing. The document states that children, particularly tweens, attracted mainly by the brand, the ringtones, the lastest application facilities and appearance of the device, pressurise their parents to buy expensive gadgets (Downie & Glazebrook, 2007). The research discloses that many tweens fear missing out on new updates and models. It claims that these children are attempting to establish their identity through possession of "cool" phones. This materialistic attitude commercialises their childhood and inflicts upon them, a never-ending consumer culture. The survey notes the existence of such a culture predominantly among children from low-income families. When their families' financial circumstances deny them the needful, the survey opines, these kids undergo identity crises and begin to experience psychosomatic dysfunctions (Downie & Glazebrook, p.05).  

A subtle existence of all the fore-mentioned traits existed in my cousin brother as well. I have been in my brother's life since the day he was born. Numerous times, I cradled him as a baby, fed him, bathed him and watched him play. He used to be excessively tall and tanned for his age because of all the time spent in the sun. My best memories of him involved him playing games, both imaginary and real: jumping around chasing after footballs and narrating tales about the tiny plastic people he stationed around huts he built out of wet playground mud. But clearly, these activities did not define him as much as the gadgets did. The first ten years of a child's life make up for his/her best childhood. It's the time when kids begin to discover their surroundings; the time they just go out and have fun! It's also a crucial time for them to bond with their parents. It is at this pivotal phase of their lives that their parents can undisputedly shape their minds, teach them moral values and help them grow responsibly. So, when a lifeless machine substitutes the role of parents and the outdoors, the child's attachment and loyalty immediately shift to the former, creating a permanent break in his/her bond with the latter. But even after knowing all these facts, some argue in favour of children having access to digital devices. 

Jordy Kaufman, director of a research facility called BabyLab, insists that mobile phones and iPads are not like the traditional television set or video games. He claims that their benefits are plenty when used in the right way. He also believes that these devices can replace traditional toys, saying that they have the potential to exceed the teaching capacity by engaging the mirror neurons - which help the human brain understand the virtual space - in children thereby increasing cognitive development (Cocozza, 2014). Another scholar named Rosie Flewitt, from the Institute of Education at the University of London, talks about the benefits of tablet use in early primary education (Cocozza, 2014). 

Tablet learning can curb creativity and imagination by reducing children to a fixed framework and not allowing them to think outside the box. But that is one minor setback which can be overlooked if the tablets are only used for educational purposes. So, while I agree with Miss Flewitt about tablet learning stimulating intelligence in children, I cannot accept Mr Kaufman's arguments. Scientific research and testing prove that giving tablet access to young children (between 24-60 months) can lead to poor performances that are undetectable to parents (Madigan et al., 2019). Due to this factor, parents will be oblivious to how their children utilise their gadgets. Without parental control, the ethical and moral usage of devices is highly tested. Also, I strongly question the advantage of replacing traditional toys with tablets. I remember witnessing my brother once trying to move a building block from the floor by placing his finger in the air around it and swiping up. He was trying to move the block without even touching it! Very young children are not capable of reinterpreting virtually gained knowledge in real life. At that time, my brother was not more than one year old. So if we want our children to be able to understand the simple concept of picking and holding objects, then putting a tablet in their hands is not going to do the trick. It is also important to note that the engagement of children is heightened when they actively take part in what is entertaining them, like outdoor activities, not when they are being entertained by a screen. 

In conclusion, restricted screen time is the answer to all the problems posed by the use of digital devices. Firstly, access must be denied entirely to very young children (below five years) at home. The only exception for these kids using the devices should be during school-time. Secondly, children between five and ten years of age should have monitored and time-constricted screen time. Parents must also learn to be assertive about these rules and must always try to supplement benefits from the screen time by teaching the kids new things on gadgets such as basic animations and reading. Finally, it is imperative for parents to always remind children of all ages about the harmful effects of using digital devices.

If these three things are kept in mind, then even if our children are born with Pandora's boxes, they can still learn to live with them and also use them for the betterment of society and the future. 

Bibliography

Beurkens, Nicole. “Screen Time Can Be DANGEROUS For Kids' (Mental & Physical Health).” Dr. Nicole Beurkens, 1 Oct. 2018, www.drbeurkens.com/dangers-overexposure-electronics-kids-mental-physical-health/.

Burnett, Dean. “Toddlers Pose a Serious Risk to Smartphones and Tablets | Dean Burnett.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 3 Feb. 2015, www.theguardian.com/science/brain-flapping/2015/feb/03/toddlers-damage-smartphones-tablets.

Cocozza, Paula. “Are IPads and Tablets Bad for Young Children?” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 8 Jan. 2014, www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jan/08/are-tablet-computers-bad-young-children.

D'Antona, Robin, et al. “Sexting, Texting, Cyberbullying and Keeping Youth Safe Online.” Journal of Social Sciences, vol. 6, no. 4, 2010, pp. 523–528., doi:10.3844/jssp.2010.523.528.

Downie, Christian, and Kate Glazebrook. “Mobile Phones and the Consumer Kids.” Australia Institute, Feb. 2007, pp. 1–7., http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.554.4187&rep=rep1&type=pdf

“The Impact of Media Use and Screen Time on Children, Adolescents, and Families.” American College of Pediatricians, 9 Nov. 2016, www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/parenting-issues/the-impact-of-media-use-and-screen-time-on-children-adolescents-and-families.

Madigan, Sheri, et al. “Association Between Screen Time and Children’s Performance on a Developmental Screening Test.” JAMA Pediatrics, vol. 173, no. 3, 28 Jan. 2019, pp. 244–260., doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2018.5056.

Silver, Laura, et al. “2. Majorities Say Mobile Phones Are Good for Society, Even amid Concerns about Their Impact on Children.” Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech, Pew Research Center, 7 Mar. 2019, www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/03/07/majorities-say-mobile-phones-are-good-for-society-even-amid-concerns-about-their-impact-on-children/.

Tamana, Sukhpreet K., et al. “Screen-Time Is Associated with Inattention Problems in Preschoolers: Results from the CHILD Birth Cohort Study.” Plos One, vol. 14, no. 4, 17 Apr. 2019, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0213995.

Veldhuis, Lydian, et al. “Parenting Style, the Home Environment, and Screen Time of 5-Year-Old Children; The ‘Be Active, Eat Right’ Study.” PLoS ONE, vol. 9, no. 2, 12 Feb. 2014, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0088486.

Walters, Joanna. “Tablets and Smartphones May Affect Social and Emotional Development, Scientists Speculate.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 2 Feb. 2015, www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/feb/01/toddler-brains-research-smartphones-damage-social-development