Can kids learn from TV? Or, are we kidding our selves?

-->

"Sid The Science Kid: TV" show review by COCM member Don Shifrin, M.D., F.A.A.P, as seen in the NY Times, September 1, 2008:

A Young Scientist at Work to Inspire Kids’ Curiosity

By Neil Genzlinger (bolding for emphasis by Don Shifrin, MD, FAAP), New York Times

"If it takes a village, then we should all be concerned about Sid. The lad is only maybe 3 or 4, but already it’s obvious that he’s headed for trouble.

Sid is the host of “Sid the Science Kid,” a series for preschoolers that begins Monday on PBS. And he has a desperate-for-attention problem that is only moderately irksome now, but when he’s older will lead him to either put those oversize tires on the back of his car or seek a career in musical theater.

PBS is employing Sid, who is animated in a process called digital puppetry, as an ambassador for what education20types might call science readiness. His show, done in that hyperactive style that adults have determined is what the very young prefer, seeks to put across the fundamentals of science.

How fundamental? The first episode is all about charts. Sid makes a chart to record how many chores he has done, since once he has done enough he will get a new Turbo Robot Megaship toy. In school he and his classmates make charts of which kid has brought what snack to school. What does this have to do with science? Well, um, scientists use charts a lot, and, uh, that’s pretty much it.

There’s no point in trying to analyze whether this show will accomplish its educational objective, because who knows, really, what speaks to small children? So the only thing to do with “Sid the Science Kid” is to ponder it as a sociological statement.

Sid is never without his toy microphone, which he is constantly yapping into or shoving in other people’s faces. He is, in other words, always performing. So are many of the other characters, including his teacher. It’s no accident that one recurring feature of the show, a joke of the day, is delivered via portholes reminiscent of the “Rowan & Martin’s Laugh-In” wall. This is introductory science tailored for the age of self-indulgence and short attention spans.

The show bears the Jim Henson Comp any’s name, so it probably has merit. Still, it’s hard not to think that the only bearable person in this animated world is Sid’s grandmother, who points out to him that she never needed to be bribed with the promise of a new gewgaw to do her chores. Take it from Grandma, kid: Life is not your own personal TV show, and sometimes — a lot of the time, actually — you need to just sit down, shut up and do the work."

Dr. Don's 2cents:
OK, so the take on this 'new' form of PBS entertainment in the genre of Jimmy Neutron, boy genius is, inevitably, flawed.
Over and over we find that programming from toddlerhood to teens is replete with features geared to induce or is it produce short attention spans.
Note here that the great Jon Stewart started out professional life on Comedy Central's short attention span theater which ran from 1989-1994.
This is not definable learning, as no research will be done as to the impact of the 'lessons' featured, but another controversial point in the ongoing discussion about 2-D versus 3-D interactive learning.

And when these shows go 'virtually' into the digital interactive world where children can touch the screen or digitally participate in their 'learning', will it be a thoughtful, focused exercise, or will it be just more buttons to push quickly.

Already there is concern over the way children-and adults read in digital formats versus traditional reading styles. See the August issue of Atlantic Monthly where Nicolas Carr has written a 4000 word article, Is Google Making Us Stupid"?
As the media theorist Marshall McLuhan pointed out in the 1960s, media are not just passive channels of information. They supply the stuff of thought, but they also shape the process of thought. And what the Net seems to be doing is chipping away my capacity for concentration and contemplation. My mind now expects to take in information the way the Net distributes it: in a swiftly moving stream of particles. Once I was a scuba diver in the sea of words. Now I zip along the surface like a guy on a Jet Ski.

Do parents see this coming, or, are they too, drowning in a sea of media that they think is well-intended to prepare and instruct their children faster and better than they ever could using past methods?
Who among us is likely to shout out at the passing parade of web, TV, DVD, and read-along devices, " the Emperor has no clothes"............

Opportunity, Means, And Motive

David Hill MD, FAAP

“So, Doctor, what are some things people can do about this problem?” If you’ve ever faced a reporter then you’ve probably answered some version of this question. If you had adequate time to prepare, you may have even emailed your advice in advance to provide bullet points for the graphic. This is, after all, “news you can use!” (What would they call it if “news” and “use” didn’t rhyme?)

But do you ever wonder how many people actually do the stuff you recommend? I imagine it depends in part on the nature of the advice. “Keep your children indoors while these wildfires rage,” probably sees a lot of takers. “Be sure and get your child’s flu vaccine this season,” wins some, if not as many as we’d like. “Don’t let your child have a television in his bedroom,” gets...(crickets).

What do we hope to accomplish as pediatricians by engaging the media, aside of course from the fame, fortune, and autograph-seekers we so enjoy? Personally, I hope to extend my mission beyond the exam room into people’s living rooms, where my advice can help children live healthier lives. But if that’s our goal, how can we be best accomplish it?

In the clinic, I know the answer. My career has spanned the transition from a paternalistic model of behavior change (“Of course you’ll do what I say; can’t you see how crisply pressed my white coat is?”) to the awkwardly named transtheoretical model (“So is it okay if we talk for a moment about your habit of sharing cigarettes with your child?”). This transition has given birth to motivational interviewing, a technique that pretty much blows everything else out of the water when it comes to helping people embrace healthier behaviors.

Motivational interviewing is far too involved to fully explain in this space, but the four core concepts are pithy enough to hit. The first idea, “express empathy,” suggests we start by listening to where our patients are coming from and trying to connect, i.e., “I can see how smoking with your child gives you two a chance to bond.”

Second comes, “develop discrepancy,” meaning to help patients see how their current behaviors might lead to outcomes they don’t desire, as in, “You’ve said you wished you could quit smoking. How do you feel about your child smoking?” Third, and most alliterative, is, “roll with resistance,” meaning we must accept that patients’ reluctance to change is a normal part of human nature and not a moral failure, like, “It sounds as though you feel the time you share smoking with your child is strengthening your relationship. I see why you might not want to give that up.” 

This leads to the final step, “support self-efficacy,” a toughie; both because it’s nearly impossible to say three times fast and because it doesn’t just mean being supportive when patients do what we suggest. It means being equally supportive when they don’t, as in, “I’ve enjoyed our conversation today. If we can talk about this smoking thing again some time, please let me know!”

Motivational interviewing isn’t magic, but when practiced one-on-one it has posted impressive results for changing behaviors ranging from overeating to alcohol abuse. The question I struggle with is how to make this face-to-face intervention work when addressing a whole population, as we do in the media. Can we ask what people’s most common reasons are for, say, not vaccinating their kids? (It turns out more parents are worried about pain and fever than about autism.) Can we show empathy for those in our audience who may resist change, citing those reasons? Can we avoid moralistic language when talking about people whose decisions we think are unwise?

I don’t pretend to have mastered the art of translating motivational interviewing techniques to a sound bite that may last well under a minute. I do think, however, that those of us who can pull off that trick will be the most effective medical communicators ever. As for myself, I can live without autograph-seekers. I wouldn’t want them to wrinkle my white coat.

Screen Free Week Impossible – Try Screen Awareness

Corinn Cross, M.D.

National Screen Free Week is upon us again.  It begins today, Monday May 5^th, and concludes Sunday May 11th.

All families are encouraged to observe Screen Free Week but as our culture becomes increasingly intertwined with screens, how to limit screen time and increase awareness has become immensely more challenging.

Originally, Screen Free week was TV Turn-off week. Easy enough, 1 week, no TV.  But now screens are everywhere and needed for everything, emails, social networking. They are used in school for school work and communicating with parents and often needed for homework.  It seems almost impossible to go an entire day, never mind a week without using a screen.

So, what is a common sense parent to do?

Understand the reasoning behind Screen Free week. Although some screen time is at this point necessary for most teens and adults, there are ways that we can scale back unnecessary screen time and open up more time for other activities:  reading, socializing in person with friends and family, going outside, exercising.

I think a more appropriate name for the upcoming week would be Screen Awareness Week. In this way, the task seems much more manageable. Use Screen Free week to take an inventory of how much time you and your family are spending on screens and try instituting plans on how to monitor that time and dedicate screen free periods throughout the day.

To take advantage of Screen Free Week and make it successful in your home, start by making a plan and having a goal. Discuss with your family the expectations and limits for the week.

Simple suggestions for families include:

• Designate a drop area for cell phones when you walk in the door. Cell phones should go here during screen free times and at night to charge.  Cell phones should not be left in a child or teens room overnight to charge, but should be either in a public room or the parent’s bedroom.
• Set a time or times throughout the day when you will not use screens, laptops or smartphones. Ideally for Screen Free week this would be all the time that a child is home but realistically most families may find that a shorter period of time is both do-able and more importantly sustainable. Start with 2 or 3 hours once you get home from school - unless it is for homework, and of course no screens or phones during dinner
• Disconnect from unnecessary digital interactions. Take a week vacation from social networking sites and surfing the web. Use this time to discuss privacy settings and appropriate on-line behavior with your children and teens.
• Check in with your kids about cyber-bullying and what to do if they experience it or more likely, witness it.  
• Turn the TV off for 1 week and when you go back to TV remember no screen time for children under 2 years of age and only 2 hours of TV for older kids and teens.

Use Screen Free Week as an opportunity to reassess your family’s media use. At the end of the week, discuss with your family how the week went. Was it easier or harder than expected?  What changes do you want to continue with as a family? Did any of the changes you made have a positive impact? You may find that you would like to have a TV free night once a week or an hour or two every evening when all screens are turned off.  Most families find that when they can disconnect -- even a little, they can reconnect with each other a whole lot.

For more information about Screen Free Week, check out the American Academy of Pediatrics parent’s website healthychildren.org.