EX. PSY Assignment 8
rock n roll
ExperimentalPsychologyAssignment8.docxEXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY
______________________________________________________________________________
Today’s lab:
“Critically reading an article” Exercise
Learning Goals
1. summarize research articles/literature/blogs
1. critically analyze and evaluate the accuracy of information presented in these sources.
_________________________________________________________________________
PART 1- Information in Page 2-4
The first goal of this lab is to learn how to read and summarize the key ideas in research articles or other sources of information. Please go through the article that starts on page 2 and kindly answer the following questions based on it:
1. What issue is the writer focusing on in the article? (In no more than 1-2 sentences)
2. Briefly summarize the article (in about 250 words).
3. Who is the audience for this writing?
4. What evidence does the writer use to support the central argument? Does the writer include enough evidence?
5. Do you agree with the evidence the writer provides to support her argument? Why/why not?
6. Does the writer consider, address and/or refute opposing arguments?
7. After reading this article, what are your thoughts on the use of technology by children? Should handheld devices be banned for children under the age of 12?
PART 2- Information in Page 5-10
Now that you have summarized the above article, please review the responses starting on page 4 below and answer these questions:
1. Please summarize some of the key issues with the central argument in the original article.
2. Write in your own words the fallacies and inaccuracies with respect to the evidence that was provided in support of the argument in the original article.
3. Why do you think in the field of research it is important to rely only on information that is empirically tested and adequately supported by scientific evidence?
4. Has your opinion changed from your initial position on the use of handheld devices by children. Why/ Why not?
Once you have completed both parts of this lab, please upload your assignment in the Lab Dropbox. Name the file Lastname_Lab 8.doc”. For your submission, please only submit your answers, not the articles below.
ARTICLE FOR PART 1
10 Reasons Why Handheld Devices Should Be Banned for Children Under the Age of 12
·
The American Academy of Pediatrics and the Canadian Society of Pediatrics state infants aged 0-2 years should not have any exposure to technology, 3-5 years be restricted to one hour per day, and 6-18 years restricted to 2 hours per day (AAP 2001/13, CPS 2010). Children and youth use 4-5 times the recommended amount of technology, with serious and often life threatening consequences (Kaiser Foundation 2010, Active Healthy Kids Canada 2012). Handheld devices (cell phones, tablets, electronic games) have dramatically increased the accessibility and usage of technology, especially by very young children (Common Sense Media, 2013). As a pediatric occupational therapist, I’m calling on parents, teachers and governments to ban the use of all handheld devices for children under the age of 12 years. Following are 10 research-based reasons for this ban. Please visit zonein.ca to view the Zone’in Fact Sheet for referenced research.
1. Rapid brain growth Between 0 and 2 years, infant’s brains triple in size , and continue in a state of rapid development to 21 years of age (Christakis 2011). Early brain development is determined by environmental stimuli, or lack thereof. Stimulation to a developing brain caused by overexposure to technologies (cell phones, internet, iPads, TV), has been shown to be associated with executive functioning and attention deficit, cognitive delays, impaired learning, increased impulsivity and decreased ability to self-regulate , e.g. tantrums (Small 2008, Pagini 2010).
2. Delayed Development Technology use restricts movement, which can result in delayed development . One in three children now enter school developmentally delayed, negatively impacting literacy and academic achievement (HELP EDI Maps 2013). Movement enhances attention and learning ability (Ratey 2008). Use of technology under the age of 12 years is detrimental to child development and learning (Rowan 2010).
3. Epidemic Obesity TV and video game use correlates with increased obesity (Tremblay 2005). Children who are allowed a device in their bedrooms have 30% increased incidence of obesity (Feng 2011). One in four Canadian, and one in three U.S. children are obese (Tremblay 2011). 30% of children with obesity will develop diabetes, and obese individuals are at higher risk for early stroke and heart attack, gravely shortening life expectancy (Center for Disease Control and Prevention 2010). Largely due to obesity, 21st century children may be the first generation many of whom will not outlive their parents (Professor Andrew Prentice, BBC News 2002).
4. Sleep Deprivation 60% of parents do not supervise their child’s technology usage, and 75% of children are allowed technology in their bedrooms (Kaiser Foundation 2010). 75% of children aged 9 and 10 years are sleep deprived to the extent that their grades are detrimentally impacted (Boston College 2012).
5. Mental Illness Technology overuse is implicated as a causal factor in rising rates of child depression, anxiety, attachment disorder, attention deficit, autism, bipolar disorder, psychosis and problematic child behavior ( Bristol University 2010 , Mentzoni 2011, Shin 2011 , Liberatore 2011 , Robinson 2008). One in six Canadian children have a diagnosed mental illness, many of whom are on dangerous psychotropic medication (Waddell 2007).
6. Aggression Violent media content can cause child aggression (Anderson, 2007). Young children are increasingly exposed to rising incidence of physical and sexual violence in today’s media. “Grand Theft Auto V” portrays explicit sex, murder, rape, torture and mutilation, as do many movies and TV shows. The U.S. has categorized media violence as a Public Health Risk due to causal impact on child aggression (Huesmann 2007). Media reports increased use of restraints and seclusion rooms with children who exhibit uncontrolled aggression.
7. Digital dementia High speed media content can contribute to attention deficit , as well as decreased concentration and memory, due to the brain pruning neuronal tracks to the frontal cortex (Christakis 2004, Small 2008). Children who can’t pay attention can’t learn.
8. Addictions As parents attach more and more to technology, they are detaching from their children. In the absence of parental attachment, detached children can attach to devices, which can result in addiction (Rowan 2010). One in 11 children aged 8-18 years are addicted to technology (Gentile 2009).
9. Radiation emission In May of 2011, the World Health Organization classified cell phones (and other wireless devices) as a category 2B risk (possible carcinogen) due to radiation emission (WHO 2011). James McNamee with Health Canada in October of 2011 issued a cautionary warning stating “Children are more sensitive to a variety of agents than adults as their brains and immune systems are still developing, so you can’t say the risk would be equal for a small adult as for a child.” (Globe and Mail 2011). In December, 2013 Dr. Anthony Miller from the University of Toronto’s School of Public Health recommend that based on new research, radio frequency exposure should be reclassified as a 2A (probable carcinogen), not a 2B (possible carcinogen). American Academy of Pediatrics requested review of EMF radiation emissions from technology devices, citing three reasons regarding impact on children (AAP 2013).
10. Unsustainable The ways in which children are raised and educated with technology are no longer sustainable (Rowan 2010). Children are our future, but there is no future for children who overuse technology. A team-based approach is necessary and urgent in order to reduce the use of technology by children. Please reference below slide shows on www.zonein.ca under “videos” to share with others who are concerned about technology overuse by children.
Problems - Suffer the Children - 4 minutes Solutions - Balanced Technology Management - 7 minutes
The following Technology Use Guidelines for children and youth were developed by Cris Rowan, pediatric occupational therapist and author of Virtual Child; Dr. Andrew Doan, neuroscientist and author of Hooked on Games; and Dr. Hilarie Cash, Director of reSTART Internet Addiction Recovery Program and author of Video Games and Your Kids, with contribution from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Canadian Pediatric Society in an effort to ensure sustainable futures for all children.
Technology Use Guidelines for Children and Youth
Please contact Cris Rowan at [email protected] for additional information. © Zone’in FebruaryThis post has elicited a number of responses from other bloggers. You can read some of those here and here .
Follow Cris Rowan on Twitter: www.twitter.com/zoneinprograms
RESPONSES FOR PART 2
Response 1
10 Points Where the Research Behind Banning Handheld Devices for Children Is Flawed
You may have come across Cris Rowan’s popular HuffPost piece explaining 10 reasons handheld devices should be banned for children under 12. You may also have read the rebuttal from a librarian mom who explains why she will continue to give her children handheld devices. While the pro-device author explains the benefits of handhelds, what she doesn’t uncover is that the research cited by the original author doesn’t support her claims.
In fact, the research cited in the Rowan piece is so unsupportive of her claims, it seems possible that the real motive behind the article was to test the reader’s gullibility. If readers had dug a little deeper, they’d find the truth.
The research focuses mainly on passive television consumption and video games that are either simple or for mature audiences. Much of it also is focused, not on pre-teens, but rather on teens and adults. The research shows a dearth of findings around the type of technology use in which the overwhelming majority of children engage.
Video games themselves come in many flavors, varieties and levels of complexity, a fact the article ignores. For example, today’s video games often provide complex interactive stories through which players navigate. While some are simple video games, others are Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games (MMORPGs) like Minecraft and World of Warcraft. Innovative educators have created complete educational curricula around them. Interactive programs like Footsteps 2 Brilliance are teaching young people to read using research-based interactive techniques that a book is not built to provide. Young people are playing music in iPad bands. See what that looks like here. They are fascinated with geography using apps with wild popularity like Stacked States. They are learning about physics and geometry via apps like Angry Birds. They are writing more than ever as well as reading on their handheld devices. Perhaps most important is that technology allows us to virtually reach out and touch someone, providing access to experts and others around the world who share our interests. This is happening via social networking like Facebook and Twitter, video conferencing platforms like Skype and Google Hangout, or via resources like Scratch which teach basic computer programing.
Tech savvy parents and educators know that all these things are good for young people. This is why the Rowan article left some of us scratching our heads. Rather than acknowledge any of the amazing things children are doing with their devices, the article instead focused on couch potato zombies. Most of us are alarmed at the sight of a child passively staring at a screen or playing simple or needlessly violent video games; often we adults experience the addictive nature of games ourselves and understand that it is not what is best for children. However this article focused almost entirely on these activities. Parents and educators should not be easily fooled. Handheld devices provide the ability to do much more.
I am fortunate to have had the chance to observe and teach the best use of these devices. I’m calling on parents, teachers and government agencies to use common sense and empower students with the freedom to learn using handheld devices.
Following are 10 reasons the research behind the call-to-action to ban devices is flawed.
1) American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)
The AAP talks about screen time and media use, but if you look at the recommendations, they are all about TV time. Take a look at their recommendations here. You will find no mention of how young people interactively use technology. There was also a journal article cited from the AAP which is used as evidence for decreased ability to self regulate, but again, it is not referring to handheld devices. It is a study about children watching cartoons. You can take a look at that research here. Finally there is research presented to suggest that handhelds emit harmful radiation. But the research cited says no such thing. In fact it says The National Cancer Institute has stated that studies have not demonstrated that radio frequency energy from cell phones cause cancer.
2) US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health
This research is used to point to handhelds causing issues with executive functioning and attention deficit, cognitive delays, impaired learning, increased impulsivity. You can look at this decade-old research here and you’ll find it is talking about television exposure, not technology use.
Another article is mentioned that is supposed to link technology use and increased obesity. Instead, the research, which you can see here, studies televisions in the bedrooms of Hispanic children.
3) University of Bristol - Peach Project Study
This study was used to point out psychosis in children exposed to too much screen time, but again, it is pointing to passive television and simple video games. “Watching TV or playing computer games for more than two hours a day is related to greater psychological difficulties irrespective of how active children are.” 4) Boston College Study
This study is reported to say that children are sleep deprived. This is true, however, it then says the problem is “probably” due to smartphones. We know, however, that the research is clear. School has created a national sleep crisis. Another problem is over-scheduling our kids. It’s no wonder that after a long day of school and activities young people want some of their own downtime and they get that via connecting with peers, reading books, and engaging in other such activities all accessible via technology.
5) TED Talk by Dr. John J. Ratey
This TED Talk does not indicate we need to reduce screen time. Instead Ratey tells schools that movement enhances attention and learning ability. To remedy this we need to give students more opportunities to move during the school day. If we’re truly concerned about obesity, we will find ways to restore recess, and let students leave their desks and move around.
6, 7, 8) Mentzoni 2011, Shin 2011, Liberatore 2011
These pieces were cited as proof that technology causes problems like attention deficit, autism, bipolar disorder, psychosis and problematic child behavior. The problem is they don’t do that. Here is what each of the studies were actually looking at.
6) Mentzoni 2011 This study was not about technology causing addiction, but rather it looked at what caused addiction and effects on physical and mental health in .6% of a population of young males in Norway. Interestingly, they found no correlation between video game addiction and physical health.
7) Shin 2011 This is a study about male industrial workers in Korea. It also looks at internet addiction as a symptom NOT cause of other issues.
8) Liberatore 2011 This doesn’t say stay away from handhelds. It says that parents should be involved in ensuring responsible use by their children. Bravo.
9) Psychological science
This research is said to make the point that children are addicted to technology. However, pull back the curtain and that is not what you find. Instead this is another article about one type of technology use: video games with a focus on pornographic and violent games.
10) Journal of American Medical Association study
The author uses this study to explain that early brain development is determined by environmental stimuli, or lack thereof. Stimulation to a developing brain caused by overexposure to technologies (cell phones, internet, iPads, TV), which have been shown to be associated with executive functioning and attention deficit, cognitive delays, impaired learning, increased impulsivity and decreased ability to self regulate, e.g. tantrums. However, this study is not about cell phones, internet, or iPads. It is about passive television exposure. You can take a look here.
The verdict
The real intent of this author is suspect. Did she want to see how many readers would ignore the research and take her words at face value? Did she not understand that handhelds have more beneficial uses than passive television viewing and simple and/or mature video games do ?
Maybe she is showing a distaste for activities that don’t bring up warm and fuzzy feelings of her own childhood; she doesn’t understand it, and rails against it in the age-old way that adults do. It used to be rock-and-roll; now it is devices. Can’t we be more enlightened now? Can’t we, the generation who invented these devices and made them irresistible, be smarter than our parents were when they heard the Rolling Stones for the first time?
Or maybe her motives are more sinister than simple ignorance or fear. Perhaps she is preying on adult fears, while drumming up business for the company she works for; a company that profits from telling people how their resources can combat the dangers of technology.
Personally, I’d rather operate a business based on facts, not fear.
Discerning educators and parents: Take a look at the research. Decide for yourself.
Follow Lisa Nielsen on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Innovativeedu
Response 2
10 Reasons Why We Need Research Literacy, Not Scare Columns
This column was co-authored with Glenda Revelle, Associate Professor, University of Arkansas, and Jessica Taylor Piotrowski, Assistant Professor and Director of the Center for Research on Children, Adolescents, and the Media at the University of Amsterdam, with additional contributions from members of the Children and Media Professionals group on Facebook.
The children and media research community has been buzzing with frustration at the viral circulation of Cris Rowan’s Huffington Post column, “10 Reasons Why Handheld Devices Should Be Banned for Children Under the Age of 12.” The piece pretty well defines “hack-ademic” writing, in which an author throws lots of learned-sounding terms and citations at a lay reader, while obscuring misinterpretations and fuzzy logic. Here are 10 reasons why Rowan’s column is flawed.
1. First and foremost, why jump straight to banning? Handheld devices are the “Swiss Army Knife” of modern life: a safety device to keep in contact with family and friends, a camera for documenting the world, a window to connect with grandparents across miles, an e-reader, an educational tool, a gateway to global information, and a source of games and entertainment. To remove that entirely from children up to 12 would cut off an incredibly powerful resource.
It’s unclear whether the author lacks faith in families, or is simply so scared of a generation that learns differently from her own that she can’t envision any response but to ban it. Why not propose ways to use these tools proactively to ensure healthy development, through a message of balance, mindfulness and media literacy? Most families live lives in balance, with time for media as well as time to play outdoors, enjoy traditional playthings, read and talk as a family.
2. Correlation is not causation. That two events occur together doesn’t mean that one causes the other; one of the most famous examples is that ice cream sales and murders both tend to rise in hot weather, but ice cream doesn’t cause killings.
This is, perhaps, the most frequent source of confusion about academic work. It’s easy for a strong writer to avoid creating misunderstanding, but ambiguity about correlation and causality can make a weak argument look stronger, or a complicated relationship look simpler.
3. Only experimental design research (subjects randomly assigned to groups and strict control of variables other than those under investigation) and certain, carefully-controlled longitudinal studies are worthy of terms used by Rowan, like “caused by,” “is detrimental to,” or “is implicated as a causal factor in.” Experimental design studies are difficult if not impossible to conduct when it comes to real-world behaviors like media use.
4. Citing scary statistics that are completely unrelated to your argument is a bit of misdirection designed to evoke emotion, but does nothing to support a factual argument. In trying to claim that technology use is a causal factor in rising rates of childhood mental illness, Rowan says “one in six Canadian children have a diagnosed mental illness, many of whom are on dangerous psychotropic medication“ (emphasis added). This is irrelevant to technology’s role. Moreover, for the author to invoke terms like “addiction” without reference to studies investigating a biochemical, brain-based phenomenon is sensationalizing, pure and simple.
5. False premises lead inevitably to false conclusions. Rowan says, “technology use restricts movement, which can result in delayed development.” The studies that have shown that restricted movement leads to developmental delays are animal experiments employing conditions of extremely restricted movement (i.e., the inability to move any of their limbs). Not only don’t those extremes apply to mobile device use, some platforms (Kinect, Wii) actually promote physical movement (Staiano, A. E., Abraham, A. A., & Calvert, S. L. (2012); Staiano, A. E., & Calvert, S. L. (2011); Graves, L., Stratton, G., Ridgers, N., & Cable, N. (2007); Graf,D., Pratt, L.V., Hester, C.N., Short, K.R. (2009)).
6. Stick to the facts, ma’am. You can’t conclude that relationships between media use and attention and memory are due to “the brain pruning neuronal tracks to the frontal cortex” without a neurological study that specifically investigated synaptic pruning. (For more discussion on this point, see: Courage, M.L., & Howe, M. (2010).)
7. Complex phenomena have equally complex causes. Childhood obesity arises from a variety of inter-related and inextricable societal, economic, cultural, biological and other factors. It is reductive in the extreme to suggest that media are the sole cause.
In an excellent review on the link between TV and obesity (Jordan, A. B. (2007)), the author notes, “ultimately, we must recognise that children’s television viewing behaviours (including time spent with the medium and exposure to unhealthy food ads) are intimately tied to larger patterns of diet and activity within the home and messages about food and its role in our lives within the larger culture.”
8. Rowan races to the superficial while willfully ignoring the deeper implications. If the majority of parents allow technology in their children’s bedrooms without supervising its use, and the majority of children are sleep-deprived, third variables like parental supervision or socio-economic issues like family overcrowding, might be at issue.
9. It’s not fair to just eat all the raisins in the raisin bran. The author ignores positive effects from media use. A host of research studies have shown that when media content are designed with research-based knowledge of how children use and understand media, and when they are designed to incorporate systematic academic or social curricula, children benefit (Schmidt, M. E., & Anderson, D. R. (2007); Fisch, S. M. (2004)).
Outside of academic research, real-life families of children with special needs are finding extraordinary adaptive uses of handheld devices in support of their children’s cognitive, social and emotional development.
10. Marketing is not research. Rowan’s 10th point, that today’s childrearing and education are unsustainable, is unsupported except by promotion for videos on the author’s website.
“Children are our future, but there is no future for children who overuse technology.” I’m not sure whether to first address the hyperbole (actually, in today’s society, the future is more dim for children who are kept ignorant to responsible and productive technology use) or the tautology (overuse of anything is a bad idea — we should be concerned about any child whose life is circumscribed by one thing).
We stand against “banning” that which we don’t like, and that includes the rights of activists to voice their fears and calcified wishes that it would all just go away. We believe that “hack-ademia” can only be defeated with greater public understanding of research. Critical literacy will help readers navigate through broad claims that appear to be scientific in nature, but actually misrepresent facts and findings. Outlets such as The Huffington Post can provide important, accessible, and digestible information to parents as they try to navigate this complex world. It is columnists’ job to employ research literacy skills to ensure that we successfully translate available knowledge into supportive guidance, not more guilt and confusion. Rowan does families a disservice.
References:
Courage, M.L., & Howe, M. (2010). To watch or not to watch: Infants and toddlers in a brave new electronic world. Developmental Review, 30, 101-115.
Fisch, S. M. (2004). Children’s learning from educational television. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Graf,D., Pratt, L.V., Hester, C.N., Short, K.R. (2009). Playing videogames increases energy expenditure in children. Pediatrics, 124, 534-540.
Graves, L., Stratton, G., Ridgers, N., & Cable, N. (2007). Comparison of energy expenditure in adolescents when playing new generation and sedentary computer games: Cross sectional study. British Medical Journal, 335, 1282-1284.
Jordan, A. B. (2007). Heavy television viewing and childhood obesity. Journal of Children and Media, 1(1), 45-54. doi: 10.1080/17482790601005124
Schmidt, M. E., & Anderson, D. R. (2007). The impact of television on cognitive development and educational achievement. In N. Pecora, J. P. Murray, & E. A. Wartella (Eds.), Children and television (pp. 65-85). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Staiano, A. E., Abraham, A. A., & Calvert, S. L. (2012). Adolescent exergame play for weight loss and psychosocial improvement: A controlled physical activity intervention. Obesity. Advance online publication. doi:10.1038/oby.2012.143
Staiano, A. E., & Calvert, S. L. (2011). Wii tennis play as physical activity in low-income African American adolescents. CyberPsychology, 5(1).
Follow David Kleeman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/davidkleeman
2 of 10
