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"............

Television in the Bedroom

Nan Nuessle, MD, FAAP

Do your children have a TV in their bedroom? Many children do. In fact, 30% of children under the age of 3 have a television in their bedroom, and the percentage rises with age. By the time they are teens, many kids have a television with a cable or satellite box, a computer, and a mobile phone charger in their bedroom.  A 2008 study showed that when a child has a television in his bedroom, he is at a higher risk of poor school performance, sleep disturbances, obesity and smoking.  New studies have shown that devices such as computers, DVD players, game consoles and mobile phones have similar effects. The good news is that the above study showed that the health problems and poor school performance improved if the electronic devices were removed from the child’s bedroom.

When a television is in a child's bedroom, his television viewing increases dramatically. Some studies show a seven-hour increase, from 21 hours to 30 hours of TV a week. Parents may or may not know the content that their children are viewing. Furthermore, each hour viewing TV is an hour spent not exercising, not conversing with family members and, frequently, not attending to homework. An hour not exercising is felt to contribute to obesity. An hour not conversing with family members can stunt a child's social development. An hour watching TV instead of studying, or while studying, can interfere with academic success. Additionally, once a television is in a child's bedroom, parents find it difficult to remove it.
Here are some interesting statistics. By 5th grade, half of all children have a TV, DVD player or game console in their bedroom. Over 20%, have a computer in their bedroom and over 15% have a mobile phone. What does all of this do to their sleep? 57% of these children admit to using electronics after bedtime, with over 25% engaging in 3 or more such activities after they were supposed to be asleep. Just this lack of sleep alone can contribute to academic failure and to obesity. Even when an electronic device isn’t being used at night it can still cause sleep disturbances. Electronic devices emit a blue light. This blue light is particularly important in sleep disturbances.  Blue light affects melatonin, a chemical in our brains that tells us to sleep. Thus making it more difficult to fall asleep. Some investigators claim that even if you do fall asleep having a blue light source in the bedroom while you are sleeping will decrease the quality of that sleep.
What should we do with this information? First, realize that you are not alone. Next, remove televisions, DVD players, computers and game consoles, and smart phones from all bedrooms. Your children and teens may resist this, but stand firm.  Allow them to use these devices in a family setting where the content can be supervised. Then, consider setting up a central charging area in your home for laptops, tablets, readers and mobile phones. Finally, now that your children are watching less television, playing fewer video games and spending less time on their mobile phones, get active and do fun things together as a family.
Points to remember:
1. TV and other electronic devices in the bedroom are associated with many medical problems and with poor school performance.
2. Blue light emitted from these devices can affect sleep quality.
3. Removing these devices from the bedroom can help correct these medical problems and improve school performance.

Words Matter: Countering the Culture of Disrespect

Jeanine Swenson, MD, FAAP, FACC, LMFT

 Things seem to be changing quickly in our world. Gradually obscenities have crept into interactions and our ever-expanding culture.  Many of us value freedom of speech as an individual right, and this may have hindered any discussions regarding possible downsides or meaning to this interactive trend. What, if anything, does it imply for our collective future? 

Our language, rooted in Latin, contains almost one million words.  Certainly lack of word choice cannot be the problem. But it is just a few four-lettered utterances; why should we worry?

Our nation is one of the top three in the world in population and is becoming more crowded, hectic and urbanized. We must adapt quickly to changes in our demographics. In our communities, things have sped up and we may not have the same kind of time for connecting and truly knowing our neighbors. It’s hard to appreciate the effects of stress when it is part of your everyday life. 

Like water we drink or air that we breathe, stress just seems to be part of our 21^st century landscape. How much of our language is a symptom of our times and the extreme pressure and complexity of modern life today?

On an interpersonal level, speech and self-expression reflect one’s thoughts, feelings, education and upbringing and this output is highly visible to the world.  Don’t we want this manner of communicating to be as positive and complimentary as possible? 

Sadly, I have long discussions with my teenage children about whether certain four-letter words are even obscenities because they have become so commonplace and accepted.  To prove his point, this week my son pointed out two four-letter words printed in a chapter book intended for seven to twelve-year-old readers. 

Many would suggest that this dissemination of foul language could be the harbinger of more serious cultural decline. The phrase “culture of disrespect” was coined by Dr. David Walsh in his 2004 novel entitled, “Why Do They Act That Way? A survival guide to the adolescent brain for you and your teen.”  In dissecting the negative impact of violent media content to which Americans are increasingly being exposed, Dr Walsh proclaims, “the most important effect of this diet of violent behavior, in my opinion, isn’t actual violent behavior but the culture of disrespect it has created and nourished.”  Speech and language is one of mechanisms by which this culture of disrespect is replicated and propagated. We must be concerned when even the smallest mouths are talking up a blue streak.

Like any significant behavioral change, any improvement in language is going to take collective effort from all concerned individuals and caring adults.  But, I ask you, where are the caring adults? 

Obscenities have seeped into many aspects of our mass media including music, magazines, movies, and television and seem to be aimed disproportionately toward the most impressionable minds.  But the time is now to start countering these messages. 

One of the most effective ways to show disapproval of anything in a capitalistic society is to stop buying it.  Ultimately it is the consumer who wields the power and decision-making ability. By showing disapproval and offense at the hurling of these vulgarities, each individual can do his or her part to discontinue one aspect of this growing culture of anger and disrespect.

Sadly I have no answers here, only questions?  Who will enact change?   Certainly, our children deserve a culture of respect, and I for one am willing to do the work necessary to change it.  Are you?

Hats off to the Professor

By Don Shifrin, MD FAAP

It wasn’t so long ago that Robert Preston played the legendary flim-flam man, Professor Harold Hill in the 1962 movie, The Music Man. In it he envisions a way to profit from the paranoia he creates by sensationalizing the threat to River City’s youth from the local pool hall. In the movie’s seminal scene he sings to the parents of the ‘troubles’ hanging around the pool hall will cause:

“Well, either you're closing your eyes
to a situation you do not wish to acknowledge
or you are not aware of the caliber of disaster indicated
by the presence of a pool table in your community.
Ya got trouble, my friend, right here,
I say, trouble right here in River City.

Now, I know all you folks are the right kinda parents.
I'm gonna be perfectly frank."

Flash forward 48 years to the concept that the newest “threat” to our youth might be media overexposure. Could it be real, or as exaggerated as the Professor’s theory regarding pool halls?

The list of negative outcomes from media overexposure grows longer each day: from early sexuality, smoking, poor nutritional choices, sleep problems, attention issues, cyber-bullying, violence, decreased family time, and potential academic underachievement.

I accede to the positive aspects of media for children and teens to connect, form peer-related communities, heighten political awareness, and hyper-accelerate learning.

I am not looking for profit, like Professor Hill, but note that in respect to learning. Michael Kirst, an emeritus education professor at Stanford, estimates that 60 percent of incoming community college students and 30 percent of incoming freshman at 4 year schools need remedial reading and math courses. ( Newsweek 9/13/2010)

While elementary schools are making progress academically, high schools have stagnated. Is it the teachers, courses, rigor, or failure to engage academic curiosity? Or is it media time, content and depth, or constant multitasking that is one of the biggest factors in disincentivizing students to “not like school”?

The US high school drop out rate is now 1 student every 26 seconds (7000/day). There are nearly 2000 high schools in the US where 60% of the students entering do not graduate. I can guarantee you, however, that those who drop out are all very media aware across a multitude of electronic devices.

Is there a carry-forward? I suspect strongly that tweens and teens are “tuning in, turning on”, and possibly then ‘dropping out” of the traditional educational process. (Apologies to Timothy Leary circa 1965 urging people to embrace change by using LSD to remove their cultural and conventional norms.)

Can we not say that media is now the primary peer of our digital generation and cajoles them in similar ways: incessantly glamorizing, sensationalizing, and normalizing behaviors for them to emulate?
I want to bring us back to the reality of digital immersion: it is not going to vanish, unlike an obsession with billiards. Sixty-four percent of adults in 2004 thought that owning a TV was ‘necessary’. In 2010, that number dropped to 42% indicating that other devices are supplanting TV as a primary media source.

So the digital footprint moves quickly. This Professor thinks that the greatest risk for our children would be NOT to grant them access. And the second greatest risk would be to grant them unlimited access without guidance.

In my view their social, cultural, academic and economic future will be digitally integrated. Tools are being developed to change the school paradigm from classical appointment education in a classroom, to anytime, anywhere digital learning.
Soon tablets, interactive textbooks, super fast anywhere download speeds, educational games, voice processing, and Avatar model learning systems will come online.

Who will mentor children in this brave new world? Through multiple media outlets children are repeatedly exposed to questionable ethical behavior and morals. If left to sift through the world of reality TV, talk shows, political pundits, etc. without supervision, can we expect them to emulate the values we intend them to have?

Therefore, like Professor Harold Hill I now urge parents to “Heed the warning before it's too late!
Watch for the tell-tale sign of corruption!”
That may be a little too bombastic for this topic, but parent’s need to “turn on” and tune in” to the fact that the daily media exposures of 7+ hours (Kaiser Family Foundation Jan.2010) has essentially “dropped them out” of their role as the family’s primary value filter and educator.

Without sensationalizing the topic any further please encourage your parents to answer two questions:

1) Does your child have unsupervised and unlimited electronic access on his/her various devices, especially in the bedroom?
2) Has your child’s use of media changed his or her behavior(s), academic or social, or sleep habits, or his/her connection with your family?

If their answers are inconclusive, perhaps a song from the Professor might be appropriate.

“My Baby can learn, but not through TV”

By Jeff Hutchinson, MD FAAP

There are two truths that we as pediatricians should accept. The first is that television and video entertainment is here to stay. The second is that parents who use video entertainment don’t want to feel guilty about using it. In October 2009, the Disney Company conceded that the Baby Einstein product line was misrepresented as educational and offered parents a refund. This offer has since expired and the number of parents who took advantage of the refund is difficult to find. I suspect that Disney did not lose much and may have gained supporters by showing honesty and concern.

The American Academy of Pediatrics continues to discourage TV viewing for children under two because developmentally it teaches them only how to watch TV and likely causes harm in language development(Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2009;163(6):554-558). The 2001 AAP policy statement on Children, Adolescents and Television recommends, “Discourage television viewing for children younger than 2 years, and encourage more interactive activities that will promote proper brain development, such as talking, playing, singing, and reading together.” However a 2003 Kaiser Family Foundation survey “Zero to Six” reported 68% of children under two use screen media on a typical day. This demographic of toddler television viewers has inspired the creation of products directed at parents who want educational screen time.

One product , the “Your Baby Can Read” series, claims that these instructional videos will teach your baby to read. Wouldn’t that be a parent’s dream? Plop the kids down in front of the TV and go about your business. When you return, your baby can read.

None of the educational products claim to work that way. They emphasize that the screen is a teaching device for the parent. Calling the products educational tools and comparing the videos to a teaching aid may quiet some critics, but even a die hard videophile knows that interaction is the most important aspect of development. The reality of life is that interaction with a TV screen and child often takes a back seat to laundry, dishes, meals, bills and the thousand other tasks that a parent has to do. A book forces interaction while a screen allows the caregiver to step away.

As pediatricians and parents we have to acknowledge that parents need breaks. Organized and fortunate parents get those breaks during naps. Many parents do not. Just as we talk about second hand smoke and the health benefits of quitting, we should also discuss video exposure and the benefit of stopping exposure under 2 years old. We should discuss it with the same non-judgmental but research proven emphasis we give tobacco exposure, along with the recommendation to limit exposure at all other ages. We as pediatricians can discuss if parents believe that babies and children learn from TV. We should be ready to acknowledge the need for a distraction but discourage the fantasy that TV alone has any place in early development.

The Children's Television Act: An Update

By Vandana Y. Bhide, MD, FAAP, FACP
The Children's Television Act (CTA) was passed by Congress in 1990 with the goal of providing educational programming to children that "furthers the positive development of the child in any respect, including the child's cognitive/intellectual or emotional/social needs¹."
Subsequent modifications of the Children’s Television Act required that:

1. Television stations provide a minimum of three hours per week of educational and informational shows targeted to children under the age of 16 during their prime viewing hours of 7 AM to 10 PM. Commercials were limited to 10 minutes an hour on weekends and 12.5 minutes an hour on weekdays.

2. Educational/informational children's shows had to show the "E/I" label on the television screen the entire length of the show.

3. As television transitioned from analog to digital, broadcasters, who can have up to six channels of programming in digital instead of one channel in analog, were required to provide the commensurate amount of children's educational/informational programming.

The FCC is also required to consider whether a television station has served children’s educational needs during the station’s license renewal process. In return for providing such educational programming, broadcast stations were given free access to public airwaves.
So twenty years after the Children’s Television Act was first passed, has it achieved its mission of promoting educational programming for children? Unfortunately, the answer is no.
For example, broadcasters once labeled the The Jetsons educational because it dealt with the futue and The Flintstones informational because it dealt with history. Although the show GI Joe had violent content, it was described by television stations as educational due to its pro-social themes. Networks also labeled Leave it to Beaver as educational because it had pro-social messages.
Children Now, a nonpartisan children’s research and advocacy organization, evaluated educational shows broadcast by the four major networks from 1997-2008. Children’s Now determined that in 2007-2008, only 13 % of programming described by networks as educational and informational was determined to be of high educational quality. 63 % of shows were found to have moderate quality and 23 % minimal quality.
Health and nutrition messages, especially those that addressed childhood obesity prevention, were "extremely rare." ² The report concluded that current television programming does not meet the original intentions of the Children's Television Act.
The Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee concurs. On July 22, 2009, Senator Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., Chairman of the committee, convened a hearing called "Rethinking the Children's Television Act for a Digital Media Age." The Senator said he planned to introduce legislation to regulate children's media content, citing his "grave concerns about violence and indecency in the media."
Clearly the Children’s Television Act has failed to increase educational children’s programming in a meaningful way. Even more discouraging is the fact that there have been a number of lawsuits filed by broadcasters in federal courts as well as before the FCC in an attempt to avoid their obligations to provide educational programming as stations convert from analog to digital.
What can pediatricians do to help parents when typically only three hours per week of television programming on a particular station is educational?
First, we can talk to our patients and parents about the educational programming requirements of the act, and what the “E/I” symbol means. Encourage parents to watch programs with their children to evaluate the educational value. Parents and pediatricians can notify the FCC about programming that lacks educational quality.
The FCC is generally responsive to parents who object to programming. For example, in 2007, the FCC entered into a consent decree with Univision to resolve petitions by children's and media organizations to deny the broadcaster's license renewal applications. It was alleged that Univision's children's programming did not comply with the educational requirements of the CTA. Univision voluntarily paid $24 million and developed a plan to comply with the rules of the Children's Television Act.
It is clear that most broadcasters adhere only to the minimum educational programming requirements of the Children’s Television Act. Therefore, the only way to encourage more educational television programming is to encourage the FCC and Senator Rockefeller’s committee to increase E/I programming requirements that stations must provide in order to continue to access the public airwaves for free.
References:
1. "Policies and Rules Concerning Children's Television Programming Memorandum Opinion and Order," Federal Communications Commission Record 6,(1991): p.2114.
2. Executive Summary: Educationally/Insufficient? An Analysis of the Availability & Educational Quality of Children's E/I Programming. Children Now. Htttp://www.childrennow.org/eireport.