Luis Enrique Santana, director of the Fostering Digital Citizenship Program: “Children describe their relationship with technology as an extension of their physical life into the digital realm.”

“We must stop seeing preadolescents and adolescents only as people at risk, and start recognizing them as active subjects, capable of making decisions in the digital world,” argues Luis Enrique Santana, the lead researcher of the study Growing Up Connected in Chile: Preadolescent Digital Uses, Risks, and Learning and director of the Forming Digital Citizenship Program at the School of Communications and Journalism of the Universidad Adolfo Ibáñez.

Preadolescents need guidance, but also respect for their spaces, “and listening to their voices is fundamental to designing safer, more inclusive, and meaningful digital policies, programs, and environments,” adds the academic regarding this research, which was conducted through focus groups with 87 Chilean children and adolescents between 11 and 13 years old, and also involved Amaranta Alfaro and Rosemberg Franco from Universidad Alberto Hurtado and Universidad Católica de Chile, respectively.

The academic who led the research, aimed at exploring minors’ access to technology and their digital social life, among other aspects, suggests, for example, that cell phones could be better used to reinforce formal learning and that “it all depends on how educational experiences are designed.”

He says that if critical thinking, research, content creation, and collaborative work are encouraged, “cell phones can become allies in learning, but for that, we need trained teachers, policies that support their use, and a more updated vision of the role that technology should play in the comprehensive development of children and adolescents.”

A VITAL EXTENSION

– From the study’s findings, what surprised you the most?

• I was very surprised by how children describe their relationship with technology, not from a place of fear or as a simple tool, but as a true extension of their physical life, but in the digital realm. For them, there are no clear boundaries between the two worlds. It was also very revealing that they value face-to-face encounters more than digital ones, which challenges the common idea that they are completely absorbed by the virtual world.

“Some children prefer not to tell their parents if they receive sexual content or suffer harassment, for fear of losing access to their phone. That is very worrying.”

– Does early access to cell phones with internet, even before the age of 5, without parental guidance due to family dynamics, leave children defenseless against violent, sexual, or similar content?

• Some children are getting access to their own devices between the ages of 5 and 6, generally to stay in touch with non-cohabiting parents—a frequent situation in separated families—or to facilitate daily care. For example, a child told us that his mother video-calls him during lunch because at night she can’t see him due to her work schedule. However, having a phone does not automatically imply autonomy in its use.

– The research points to inequality in parental mediation, with more or less active practices in terms of guidance, depending on the income level. How so?

• What we observe is that higher-income families tend to provide more active guidance: they talk with their children about what they do online, establish clear rules, and guide them. They also have much less time to be online due to the number of extracurricular and recreational activities they have.

In contrast, in more vulnerable sectors, adults often don’t have the time, knowledge, or tools to exercise that mediation. In these contexts, mediation is usually more restrictive—for example, limiting schedules, but without real control over the type of content they consume.

A key finding, he notes, is that in many families, the phone functions as a bargaining chip: it is given as a reward and taken away as a punishment. Some children told us that they prefer not to tell their parents if they receive sexual content or suffer harassment, for fear of losing access to the phone. That is very worrying; we want them to feel the confidence to turn to adults, not to hide what is happening to them.”

THE ROLE OF THE SCHOOL

– Is there a risk of addiction, as scientific academies in the U.S. and Canada have warned in relation to online video games?

• There is, without a doubt, a risk of problematic or compulsive use, especially when there is no regulation or guidance. However, we prefer to speak of intensive use, rather than addiction, especially in children who have not yet fully developed the capacity for self-control. Many of the preadolescents we spoke with describe personal strategies to self-regulate, and they recognize when something is bad for them. The problem is not the video game or the social network itself, but how it fits into daily life, and whether there are adults who help balance their time and priorities.

– The study takes a critical view of the role of the school in the digital age. Why?

• Because, according to the children themselves, while digital tools are used in schools, this occurs mainly in an instrumental way—to search for information or do homework—and not as part of a comprehensive pedagogical approach. Many students turn to YouTubers to understand math or history, but they do not receive tools to evaluate the quality of that content. They also use these channels for vocational guidance, to learn about cooking, cars, or travel, and all of that is completely outside of school. Furthermore, in terms of regulations, schools usually act only reactively, when a case of harassment or bullying has already occurred. There is no systematic training on how to behave or on the critical and safe use of technology.

HYPERCONNECTED

– To what do you attribute the fact that despite being immersed in an instantaneous audiovisual world, the study indicates that children value physical experiences more than digital ones?

• Because children are still children. They need to run, touch, play, and be with others face-to-face. Screens fulfill a function, especially when there are few alternatives, but they do not replace the joy or depth of a physical encounter. Many told us that the digital world tires or bores them, and that they feel it takes away time for other things they enjoy. Moreover, this generation remembers what it was like to be hyperconnected during the pandemic, and they do not want to go back to that experience.

– Does the pandemic mark a before and after in the use of cell phones by children and adolescents?

• Absolutely. The pandemic consolidated the cell phone as a key device for communicating, learning, and entertainment. Many children received their first phone in that context, and that transformed not only their routines but also their level of digital autonomy. Today, it is impossible to talk about childhood and technology without considering that experience as a turning point.

– Should cell phones be banned in classrooms?

• We do not believe that an absolute ban is the answer. The important thing is that each school community establishes clear rules for use, adapted to its reality, and that it explores ways to integrate cell phones or other devices for pedagogical purposes, when they can contribute to learning or vocational guidance. Banning them without discussion can create a disconnect between the school and the student’s daily life. Teaching how to use them for educational purposes, on the other hand, transforms the cell phone into a powerful tool. However, this does not mean that their indiscriminate use in the classroom should be allowed: that decision must be in the hands of the teacher.