As a result of CCFC’s Federal Trade Commission complaint, Baby Einstein has completely redesigned its website and is no longer making educational claims about its DVDs and videos. In 2006, CCFC filed an FTC complaint against Baby Einstein for making false and deceptive claims about the educational value of their products. In December, the FTC decided not to take enforceable action against Baby Einstein when the company promised to “take appropriate steps to ensure that any future advertising claims of educational and/or developmental benefit for children are adequately substantiated.” Since no substantiation exists, Disney will not be able to claim that the videos have educational value.
We are deeply troubled that the FTC failed to hold Disney accountable for years of deceptive marketing; essentially, the FTC is telling corporations that it’s okay to lie to parents because if you get caught there will be no consequences as long as you promise not to do it again. At the same time, we are proud that CCFC’s complaint spurred substantive changes to the Baby Einstein website. Gone are claims such as the description of Baby Wordsworth as a “rich and interactive learning experience that … fosters the development of your toddler’s speech and language skills,” or that Numbers Nursery will “help develop your baby’s understanding of what numbers mean.”
Thanks to all of you who urged the FTC to act on our complaint and shared your experiences with Baby Einstein with the Commission.
The FTC’s response to CCFC is available at http://commercialfreechildhood.org/actions/lettertoccfc.pdf.
The FTC’s response to Baby Einstein is available at http://commercialfreechildhood.org/actions/babyeinstein.pdf.
CCFC’s original complaint against Brainy Baby and Baby Einstein is available at http://www.commercialfreechildhood.org/babyvideos/ftccomplaint.htm.
Friday, March 14, 2008
Saturday, March 08, 2008
High school musical and commercial
Many people seem to think that my children are not aware of the TV world because we are not watching TV. Well, don’t forget merchandising :-)
They know about Dora as there are many Dora products everywhere and they did even read one or two stories of Dora. (I cite Dora as it seems to be the favorite character of K student)
They know Superman and Spiderman as well, thanks to their leap pad.
And since yesterday they know about High School Musical!
They were lucky enough to see the play! On stage! And the cast was all kids!
I felt they were so lucky to live this experience.
Plus because we were there really early, they go a chance to see some of the rehearsal! How the kids had to warm up their voice, to remember where they will have to stand at this specific moment of the play… How they were themselves joking around, very instructive.
Then, when the musical started, they were all playing their part. My kids were fascinated.
I am happy that they could see everything involved: the musician playing the music on our right, the light beings turn on and off, the set being changed over and over following the story, the cast changing costumes from one scene to another…
The story was going on, but everything was changing in just one place, not like in real life and must faster than in real life. Little concept that need to be assimilated in order to make the difference between real and not real.
As I said before we are not watching TV and therefore we are not watching commercial. But I did explain to them what a commercial is: well, people trying to make you spend your money buying things you do not need but they need to sell you because they want your money.
So, we decide to shoot our own commercial :-)
Hands-on, isn’t’ that the best way to apprehend things, to understand how that works?
They know about Dora as there are many Dora products everywhere and they did even read one or two stories of Dora. (I cite Dora as it seems to be the favorite character of K student)
They know Superman and Spiderman as well, thanks to their leap pad.
And since yesterday they know about High School Musical!
They were lucky enough to see the play! On stage! And the cast was all kids!
I felt they were so lucky to live this experience.
Plus because we were there really early, they go a chance to see some of the rehearsal! How the kids had to warm up their voice, to remember where they will have to stand at this specific moment of the play… How they were themselves joking around, very instructive.
Then, when the musical started, they were all playing their part. My kids were fascinated.
I am happy that they could see everything involved: the musician playing the music on our right, the light beings turn on and off, the set being changed over and over following the story, the cast changing costumes from one scene to another…
The story was going on, but everything was changing in just one place, not like in real life and must faster than in real life. Little concept that need to be assimilated in order to make the difference between real and not real.
As I said before we are not watching TV and therefore we are not watching commercial. But I did explain to them what a commercial is: well, people trying to make you spend your money buying things you do not need but they need to sell you because they want your money.
So, we decide to shoot our own commercial :-)
Hands-on, isn’t’ that the best way to apprehend things, to understand how that works?
Friday, February 22, 2008
Old-Fashioned Play Builds Serious Skills
I think the following article is worth thinking about it:
Old-Fashioned Play Builds Serious Skills
by Alix Spiegel
you can read this article and listen to the talk on NPR here: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=19212514
Morning Edition, February 21, 2008 · On October 3, 1955, the Mickey Mouse Club debuted on television. As we all now know, the show quickly became a cultural icon, one of those phenomena that helped define an era.
What is less remembered but equally, if not more, important, is that another transformative cultural event happened that day: The Mattel toy company began advertising a gun called the "Thunder Burp."
I know — who's ever heard of the Thunder Burp?
Well, no one.
The reason the advertisement is significant is because it marked the first time that any toy company had attempted to peddle merchandise on television outside of the Christmas season. Until 1955, ad budgets at toy companies were minuscule, so the only time they could afford to hawk their wares on TV was during Christmas. But then came Mattel and the Thunder Burp, which, according to Howard Chudacoff, a cultural historian at Brown University, was a kind of historical watershed. Almost overnight, children's play became focused, as never before, on things — the toys themselves.
"It's interesting to me that when we talk about play today, the first thing that comes to mind are toys," says Chudacoff. "Whereas when I would think of play in the 19th century, I would think of activity rather than an object."
Chudacoff's recently published history of child's play argues that for most of human history what children did when they played was roam in packs large or small, more or less unsupervised, and engage in freewheeling imaginative play. They were pirates and princesses, aristocrats and action heroes. Basically, says Chudacoff, they spent most of their time doing what looked like nothing much at all.
"They improvised play, whether it was in the outdoors… or whether it was on a street corner or somebody's back yard," Chudacoff says. "They improvised their own play; they regulated their play; they made up their own rules."
But during the second half of the 20th century, Chudacoff argues, play changed radically. Instead of spending their time in autonomous shifting make-believe, children were supplied with ever more specific toys for play and predetermined scripts. Essentially, instead of playing pirate with a tree branch they played Star Wars with a toy light saber. Chudacoff calls this the commercialization and co-optation of child's play — a trend which begins to shrink the size of children's imaginative space.
But commercialization isn't the only reason imagination comes under siege. In the second half of the 20th century, Chudacoff says, parents became increasingly concerned about safety, and were driven to create play environments that were secure and could not be penetrated by threats of the outside world. Karate classes, gymnastics, summer camps — these create safe environments for children, Chudacoff says. And they also do something more: for middle-class parents increasingly worried about achievement, they offer to enrich a child's mind.
Change in Play, Change in Kids
Clearly the way that children spend their time has changed. Here's the issue: A growing number of psychologists believe that these changes in what children do has also changed kids' cognitive and emotional development.
It turns out that all that time spent playing make-believe actually helped children develop a critical cognitive skill called executive function. Executive function has a number of different elements, but a central one is the ability to self-regulate. Kids with good self-regulation are able to control their emotions and behavior, resist impulses, and exert self-control and discipline.
We know that children's capacity for self-regulation has diminished. A recent study replicated a study of self-regulation first done in the late 1940s, in which psychological researchers asked kids ages 3, 5 and 7 to do a number of exercises. One of those exercises included standing perfectly still without moving. The 3-year-olds couldn't stand still at all, the 5-year-olds could do it for about three minutes, and the 7-year-olds could stand pretty much as long as the researchers asked. In 2001, researchers repeated this experiment. But, psychologist Elena Bodrova at the National Institute for Early Education Research says, the results were very different.
"Today's 5-year-olds were acting at the level of 3-year-olds 60 years ago, and today's 7-year-olds were barely approaching the level of a 5-year-old 60 years ago," Bodrova explains. "So the results were very sad."
Sad because self-regulation is incredibly important. Poor executive function is associated with high dropout rates, drug use and crime. In fact, good executive function is a better predictor of success in school than a child's IQ. Children who are able to manage their feelings and pay attention are better able to learn. As executive function researcher Laura Berk explains, "Self-regulation predicts effective development in virtually every domain."
The Importance of Self-Regulation
According to Berk, one reason make-believe is such a powerful tool for building self-discipline is because during make-believe, children engage in what's called private speech: They talk to themselves about what they are going to do and how they are going to do it.
"In fact, if we compare preschoolers' activities and the amount of private speech that occurs across them, we find that this self-regulating language is highest during make-believe play," Berk says. "And this type of self-regulating language… has been shown in many studies to be predictive of executive functions."
And it's not just children who use private speech to control themselves. If we look at adult use of private speech, Berk says, "we're often using it to surmount obstacles, to master cognitive and social skills, and to manage our emotions."
Unfortunately, the more structured the play, the more children's private speech declines. Essentially, because children's play is so focused on lessons and leagues, and because kids' toys increasingly inhibit imaginative play, kids aren't getting a chance to practice policing themselves. When they have that opportunity, says Berk, the results are clear: Self-regulation improves.
"One index that researchers, including myself, have used… is the extent to which a child, for example, cleans up independently after a free-choice period in preschool," Berk says. "We find that children who are most effective at complex make-believe play take on that responsibility with… greater willingness, and even will assist others in doing so without teacher prompting."
Despite the evidence of the benefits of imaginative play, however, even in the context of preschool young children's play is in decline. According to Yale psychological researcher Dorothy Singer, teachers and school administrators just don't see the value.
"Because of the testing, and the emphasis now that you have to really pass these tests, teachers are starting earlier and earlier to drill the kids in their basic fundamentals. Play is viewed as unnecessary, a waste of time," Singer says. "I have so many articles that have documented the shortening of free play for children, where the teachers in these schools are using the time for cognitive skills."
It seems that in the rush to give children every advantage — to protect them, to stimulate them, to enrich them — our culture has unwittingly compromised one of the activities that helped children most. All that wasted time was not such a waste after all.
Related NPR Stories
Old-Fashioned Play Builds Serious Skills
by Alix Spiegel
you can read this article and listen to the talk on NPR here: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=19212514
Morning Edition, February 21, 2008 · On October 3, 1955, the Mickey Mouse Club debuted on television. As we all now know, the show quickly became a cultural icon, one of those phenomena that helped define an era.
What is less remembered but equally, if not more, important, is that another transformative cultural event happened that day: The Mattel toy company began advertising a gun called the "Thunder Burp."
I know — who's ever heard of the Thunder Burp?
Well, no one.
The reason the advertisement is significant is because it marked the first time that any toy company had attempted to peddle merchandise on television outside of the Christmas season. Until 1955, ad budgets at toy companies were minuscule, so the only time they could afford to hawk their wares on TV was during Christmas. But then came Mattel and the Thunder Burp, which, according to Howard Chudacoff, a cultural historian at Brown University, was a kind of historical watershed. Almost overnight, children's play became focused, as never before, on things — the toys themselves.
"It's interesting to me that when we talk about play today, the first thing that comes to mind are toys," says Chudacoff. "Whereas when I would think of play in the 19th century, I would think of activity rather than an object."
Chudacoff's recently published history of child's play argues that for most of human history what children did when they played was roam in packs large or small, more or less unsupervised, and engage in freewheeling imaginative play. They were pirates and princesses, aristocrats and action heroes. Basically, says Chudacoff, they spent most of their time doing what looked like nothing much at all.
"They improvised play, whether it was in the outdoors… or whether it was on a street corner or somebody's back yard," Chudacoff says. "They improvised their own play; they regulated their play; they made up their own rules."
But during the second half of the 20th century, Chudacoff argues, play changed radically. Instead of spending their time in autonomous shifting make-believe, children were supplied with ever more specific toys for play and predetermined scripts. Essentially, instead of playing pirate with a tree branch they played Star Wars with a toy light saber. Chudacoff calls this the commercialization and co-optation of child's play — a trend which begins to shrink the size of children's imaginative space.
But commercialization isn't the only reason imagination comes under siege. In the second half of the 20th century, Chudacoff says, parents became increasingly concerned about safety, and were driven to create play environments that were secure and could not be penetrated by threats of the outside world. Karate classes, gymnastics, summer camps — these create safe environments for children, Chudacoff says. And they also do something more: for middle-class parents increasingly worried about achievement, they offer to enrich a child's mind.
Change in Play, Change in Kids
Clearly the way that children spend their time has changed. Here's the issue: A growing number of psychologists believe that these changes in what children do has also changed kids' cognitive and emotional development.
It turns out that all that time spent playing make-believe actually helped children develop a critical cognitive skill called executive function. Executive function has a number of different elements, but a central one is the ability to self-regulate. Kids with good self-regulation are able to control their emotions and behavior, resist impulses, and exert self-control and discipline.
We know that children's capacity for self-regulation has diminished. A recent study replicated a study of self-regulation first done in the late 1940s, in which psychological researchers asked kids ages 3, 5 and 7 to do a number of exercises. One of those exercises included standing perfectly still without moving. The 3-year-olds couldn't stand still at all, the 5-year-olds could do it for about three minutes, and the 7-year-olds could stand pretty much as long as the researchers asked. In 2001, researchers repeated this experiment. But, psychologist Elena Bodrova at the National Institute for Early Education Research says, the results were very different.
"Today's 5-year-olds were acting at the level of 3-year-olds 60 years ago, and today's 7-year-olds were barely approaching the level of a 5-year-old 60 years ago," Bodrova explains. "So the results were very sad."
Sad because self-regulation is incredibly important. Poor executive function is associated with high dropout rates, drug use and crime. In fact, good executive function is a better predictor of success in school than a child's IQ. Children who are able to manage their feelings and pay attention are better able to learn. As executive function researcher Laura Berk explains, "Self-regulation predicts effective development in virtually every domain."
The Importance of Self-Regulation
According to Berk, one reason make-believe is such a powerful tool for building self-discipline is because during make-believe, children engage in what's called private speech: They talk to themselves about what they are going to do and how they are going to do it.
"In fact, if we compare preschoolers' activities and the amount of private speech that occurs across them, we find that this self-regulating language is highest during make-believe play," Berk says. "And this type of self-regulating language… has been shown in many studies to be predictive of executive functions."
And it's not just children who use private speech to control themselves. If we look at adult use of private speech, Berk says, "we're often using it to surmount obstacles, to master cognitive and social skills, and to manage our emotions."
Unfortunately, the more structured the play, the more children's private speech declines. Essentially, because children's play is so focused on lessons and leagues, and because kids' toys increasingly inhibit imaginative play, kids aren't getting a chance to practice policing themselves. When they have that opportunity, says Berk, the results are clear: Self-regulation improves.
"One index that researchers, including myself, have used… is the extent to which a child, for example, cleans up independently after a free-choice period in preschool," Berk says. "We find that children who are most effective at complex make-believe play take on that responsibility with… greater willingness, and even will assist others in doing so without teacher prompting."
Despite the evidence of the benefits of imaginative play, however, even in the context of preschool young children's play is in decline. According to Yale psychological researcher Dorothy Singer, teachers and school administrators just don't see the value.
"Because of the testing, and the emphasis now that you have to really pass these tests, teachers are starting earlier and earlier to drill the kids in their basic fundamentals. Play is viewed as unnecessary, a waste of time," Singer says. "I have so many articles that have documented the shortening of free play for children, where the teachers in these schools are using the time for cognitive skills."
It seems that in the rush to give children every advantage — to protect them, to stimulate them, to enrich them — our culture has unwittingly compromised one of the activities that helped children most. All that wasted time was not such a waste after all.
Related NPR Stories
Sunday, December 23, 2007
no time for TV
Oh well, this is what is happening in my home. We came back from a visit to friends and I was just thinking about a nice video of Caillou which present Christmas in every country of the world. But my kids started to play, play, play. They were inventing a big story and ones again, no time for TV.
In fact, beside videos I am getting from the library to illustrate some lessons, like the one about volcano or the one about dinosaur, we rarely have time for TV or entertainment videos. And I am never going to tell them “stop playing and come watch some TV”
It makes senses, isn’t it?
In fact, beside videos I am getting from the library to illustrate some lessons, like the one about volcano or the one about dinosaur, we rarely have time for TV or entertainment videos. And I am never going to tell them “stop playing and come watch some TV”
It makes senses, isn’t it?
Monday, October 29, 2007
What happen to the parents who say:No daily TV in the classroom?
Oh well, hard to believe, but sadly true: the well mannered and focus and nice student who is getting along well with everyone including the teacher got kick out of the class!
Why? Because the Kindergarten teacher hate the mom!
Why? Because the mom asked her to not show TV to the children on a daily basis!
Chocking?
Oh yes, very chocking! How that can be possible that a teacher careless of the happiness of the children? Poor parents, they did not know what to do when they learned how much the teacher hated the mom, so they trusted the principal of the school who proposed to change the student of class. They wanted to find a peaceful solution for all, and most of all they did not have the experience.
And it is getting worse! The nice little student became extremely unhappy in his new class, this new class which combines Kindergarten and first grade was taking away from him not only a familiar environment that he loves, his friend, his teacher, his sister, but was also taking away all the fun of kindergarten! No more hands on activities for him, no more choice time where he was so happy to play with all his friends, no more social studies, no more center activities! All the fun went away. And a happy little dude that everyone loves became a very unhappy child trying to keep his smile to give the change to all those adults surrounding him.
And then, when the parents went back to the principal telling him how miserable their son was and how much this change was a mistake, how much this class was wrong for him, this one was cold and rude and just said: I will not change him!
Letting their son becoming more unhappy everyday was not an option, so those nice parents, who love their children enough to care about their happiness, left that school that was obviously led by a principal who does not care at all of the wellbeing of the children….
Why? Because the Kindergarten teacher hate the mom!
Why? Because the mom asked her to not show TV to the children on a daily basis!
Chocking?
Oh yes, very chocking! How that can be possible that a teacher careless of the happiness of the children? Poor parents, they did not know what to do when they learned how much the teacher hated the mom, so they trusted the principal of the school who proposed to change the student of class. They wanted to find a peaceful solution for all, and most of all they did not have the experience.
And it is getting worse! The nice little student became extremely unhappy in his new class, this new class which combines Kindergarten and first grade was taking away from him not only a familiar environment that he loves, his friend, his teacher, his sister, but was also taking away all the fun of kindergarten! No more hands on activities for him, no more choice time where he was so happy to play with all his friends, no more social studies, no more center activities! All the fun went away. And a happy little dude that everyone loves became a very unhappy child trying to keep his smile to give the change to all those adults surrounding him.
And then, when the parents went back to the principal telling him how miserable their son was and how much this change was a mistake, how much this class was wrong for him, this one was cold and rude and just said: I will not change him!
Letting their son becoming more unhappy everyday was not an option, so those nice parents, who love their children enough to care about their happiness, left that school that was obviously led by a principal who does not care at all of the wellbeing of the children….
Monday, October 08, 2007
Television harms our children and families in many ways.
Parents, you will love this article which summarizes many researches:
Breaking Out of the Box. Turn Off TV. Turn on Life. By Ann Vorisek White Web Exclusive
The average American child watches four hours of television every day, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics.1
Videotapes and video games add to the amount of time children spend staring at a screen. How does all this viewing affect us?
Television harms our children and families in many ways. Before TV, meals were a time for families to reflect upon the day and linger in peace or lively discussion over home-cooked meals. Today, most American families regularly watch television during dinner.2
Mealtimes are hurried, with children and adults eating in silence, eyes glued to the screen, or gobbling down their food in order to return to the family room to resume their interrupted television watching.
Childhood illnesses and injuries leading to bed rest used to be special times for bonding and family rituals. We can recall books that were read to us or quiet games that we played while recovering from chicken pox or a broken leg. Today, sick children spend their days watching videos and television.
In the past, holiday gatherings found children playing outdoors and adults gathered in lively discussions. Today, children are more apt to gather around the television or computer than to take up a game of kick-the-can or capture-the-flag. In fact, some family gatherings seem to revolve around TV, with Thanksgiving dinners prepared to suit the timing of football games.
As a result of the many hours they spend in front of the TV, children are in effect being parented by network producers rather than by their own parents. Television teaches children that rude, irresponsible behavior is not only acceptable but also glamorous. Children learn about sex and violence apart from their consequences, emotional attachments, and responsibilities. They learn to act impulsively, without reflection or advice from elders. Qualities such as wisdom and processes like thinking through a problem are difficult to express on a television screen, especially when the medium depends on sensationalism and shock rather than character and insight.
US Surgeon General David Satcher stated in a 2000 report on youth violence that violent television programming and video games have become a public-health issue and that "repeated exposure to violent entertainment during early childhood causes more aggressive behavior throughout a child's life.3
The American Psychological Association (APA) notes that children who regularly watch violence on television are more fearful and distrustful of the world, less bothered by violence, and slower to intervene or call for help when they see fighting or destructive behavior.4
A Los Angeles Times story reported that 91 percent of children polled said they felt "upset" or "scared" by violence on television.5
A University of Pennsylvania study found that children's TV shows contain roughly 20 acts of violence each hour.6
After watching violent programs, the APA reports, children are more likely to act out aggressively, and children who are regularly exposed to violent programming show a greater tendency toward hitting, arguing, leaving tasks unfinished, and impatience.7
The first two years of life is when the greatest and most rapid development of the brain occurs. As all parents know, a child's mind is different from an adult's, and the differences go beyond children's innocent and often poetic perceptions of the world. While the adult brain has two distinct hemispheres, the infant brain is a single receptacle of sensory experience in which neither side has developed or overpowered the other. Until they learn language, children absorb experience using a kind of nonverbal "thinking," characterized later in the brain's development as a right hemispheric function. When language begins, each hemisphere seems to be equally developed. In its structural and biochemical sense, the brain doesn't reach its full maturation until about age 12.
By maturation, the left hemisphere typically develops as the dominant side, controlling the verbal and logical functions of the brain, while the right hemisphere controls spatial and visual functions. For many years, such development was thought to be genetically predetermined and unaffected by life experiences. Today, however, this belief has changed. Although the acquisition of language appears to be universal, we now recognize that the abilities required for expression and reasoning are not automatic. Watching television threatens the development of these abilities because it requires a suspension of active cognition.
The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that children under the age of two not watch TV or videos, and that older children watch only one to two hours per day of nonviolent, educational TV. Young children watching TV are routinely described as transfixed, passive, and nonverbal. One of television's appeals for parents is that it serves as an immediate way to silence and sedate active toddlers. But such nonverbal absorption does more than simply relax and amuse preschoolers. Language spoken by actors on TV does not have the same effect as real-life language experiences. The Journal of Broadcasting reported that language skills among American children declined as TV viewing time increased.8
In real life, conversation is reciprocal and participatory; it allows time for reflection, questions, and encouragement. Television, however, is a one- way street, and you had better stay glued, ask no questions, and take no time for thought, because the next scene will appear in seconds and there is no rewind. As a result, children learn not to think but to remain passive and unresponsive to whatever stimulus appears before them. Television conditions them to absorb images without mental effort and to expect rapid change. Since young children's questions and imaginations are the cornerstone of their learning processes, remaining unresponsive hour after hour, day after day, year after year surely affects their intellectual, emotional, and moral development.
Fantasy play, a critical component of childhood, allows children to explore different situations with varying responses and outcomes. While books and storytelling nourish fantasy play, fantasy watching does not foster the same reaction. The US Department of Education reported that 81 percent of children ages two to seven watch TV unsupervised,9 which means that young children enter a world of fantasy without the guidance and oversight of an adult. Research by the Yale University Family Television and Consultation Center reveals that imagination decreases as TV watching increases.10
TV teaches children to be amused by its images instead of encouraging kids to create their own. It dulls the mind by the power of its fast-moving pictures, supplanting the mental activity necessary to follow in the mind's eye a book or a storyteller's tale. The Yale Center reports that complex language and grammar skills are directly linked to fantasy play, and that children who create fantasy play are more tolerant, peaceful, patient, and happy.
Many children become habituated to TV by their parents, who desire a break from their child's activity and attention. However, the short-term benefit of a quiet, mesmerized child may actually lead to a greater dependence on adult supervision by creating children who are less capable of amusing themselves. By supplanting their imaginations, creating fast-paced pictures, and transforming active minds into passive recipients, TV teaches mental lethargy.
For a child raised on hourly doses of TV, boredom is a common component of later childhood. In refusing to use TV during the preschool years, parents may save themselves from constantly having to create amusements for their children.
The best way to keep TV from becoming an issue with children, of course, is not to begin using it. If a TV is present in the home, it is vital to establish clear rules on its use and to maintain these rules. Never make TV a reward or a punishment; this only heightens its power. When starting the withdrawal from TV, explain why you are making these changes and that it is not a punishment. The first month will be the most difficult. Children may cry or plead, but you can remain firm if you keep in mind that you are freeing them from an addiction.
It is also imperative that you help your children learn how to fill the time that they formerly spent watching TV. Work with them to nurture interests, discover hobbies, and explore new possibilities. Begin a nightly read-aloud for the entire family. Take walks after breakfast or dinner. Share your hobbies-sewing, knitting, baking bread-with them. Learn to play instruments and make music as a family. Encourage children to help with work around the house and yard. Visit neighbors and relatives. Tell stories and pass on your family history. Build a birdhouse. Go bowling. Go sledding. Finger paint. Color. Practice yoga together. Involve your children in the daily activities of the house, and encourage yourself and your family to rekindle the flame of exploration and discovery, away from the draw of the flickering blue screen.
NOTES
1. American Academy of Pediatrics, "Television and the Family" (June 1999), http://www.aap.org/.
2. D. A. Gentile and D. A. Walsh, Media Quotient: National Survey of Family Media Habits, Knowledge, and Attitudes (Washington, DC: National Institute on Media and the Family, 1999).
3. "NAPNAP Supports Surgeon General on TV/Video Stance," press release, National Association of Pediatric Nurse Associates & Practitioners, Cherry Hill, NJ, February 2, 2000.
4. American Psychological Association, "Violence on Television" (report), http://www.apa.org/.
5. "Living in Fear," Los Angeles Times , August 23, 1998 .
6. G. L. Gerbner, M. Morgan, and N. Signorielli , "Living with Television: The Dynamics of the Cultivation Process," in J. Bryant and D. Zillman, eds., Perspectives on Media Effects (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1986).
7. See Note 4.
8. Gary W. Selnow and Erwin P. Bettinghaus, "Television Exposure and Language Development," Journal of Broadcasting 26 (Winter 1982): 1.
9. US Department of Education, "Strong Families, Strong Schools : Building Community Partnerships for Learning" (report), 1994.
10. Dorothy Singer, J. Singer, and D. Zuckerman, Use TV to Your Child's Advantage: The Parent's Guide . Yale University Family Television Research and Consultation Center , 1998. npin.org/library/1998/n00049/n00049.html
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Baldwin, Rahima. You Are Your Child's First Teacher . Celestial Arts, 2000.
Bennett, Steve and Ruth. 365 TV-Free Activities You Can Do with Your Child . Bob Adams, 1991.
Healy, Jane M. Failure to Connect: How Computers Affect Our Children's Minds-For Better and Worse. Simon and Schuster, 1998.
The Killing Screens: Media and the Culture of Violence (video recording). Sut Jhally, executive producer and director. Media Education Foundation, 1994.
Liebert, Robert M. The Early Window: Effects of Television on Children and Youth. Pergamon Press, 1988.
Mander, Jerry. Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television. Morrow, 1978.
Minow, Newton . Abandoned in the Wasteland: Children, TV, and the First Amendment. Hill and Wang, 1995.
National Association of Pediatric Nurse Associates & Practitioners (NAPNAP), 1101 Kings Highway North, Cherry Hill, NJ 08034, 856-667-1776, http://www.napnap.org/.
National Institute on Media and the Family, 606 24th Avenue, Suite 606 , Minneapolis , MN 55454 , 888-672-5437, http://www.mediaandthefamily.org/.
Postman, Neil. The Disappearance of Childhoo d. Delacorte Press, 1982.
Trelease, Jim. The Read-Aloud Handbook . Penguin Books, 1985.
TV-Turnoff Network, 1611 Connecticut Avenue, NW 3A, Washington , DC 20009 , 202- 518-5556, http://www.tvturnoff.org/.
US Senate Judiciary Committee Staff Report , "Children, Violence, and the Media," 1999.
Wilkins, Joan Anderson. Breaking the TV Habit . Scribner, 1982.
Winn, Marie. The Plug-In Drug . Penguin Books, 1985.
For more information about television, see the following articles in past issues of Mothering : "Television and Film Entertainment," no. 50; and "Preventing TV Addiction: Ten Hints for Parents," no. 31.
Ann Vorisek White lives with her husband, Harry, and their two cats in the Berkshire Mountains of Connecticut . She has a master's degree in library science and is a children's librarian in Litchfield County .
This article was published in:
http://www.mothering.com/articles/growing_child/consumerism/turn_off_tv.html
Breaking Out of the Box. Turn Off TV. Turn on Life. By Ann Vorisek White Web Exclusive
The average American child watches four hours of television every day, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics.1
Videotapes and video games add to the amount of time children spend staring at a screen. How does all this viewing affect us?
Television harms our children and families in many ways. Before TV, meals were a time for families to reflect upon the day and linger in peace or lively discussion over home-cooked meals. Today, most American families regularly watch television during dinner.2
Mealtimes are hurried, with children and adults eating in silence, eyes glued to the screen, or gobbling down their food in order to return to the family room to resume their interrupted television watching.
Childhood illnesses and injuries leading to bed rest used to be special times for bonding and family rituals. We can recall books that were read to us or quiet games that we played while recovering from chicken pox or a broken leg. Today, sick children spend their days watching videos and television.
In the past, holiday gatherings found children playing outdoors and adults gathered in lively discussions. Today, children are more apt to gather around the television or computer than to take up a game of kick-the-can or capture-the-flag. In fact, some family gatherings seem to revolve around TV, with Thanksgiving dinners prepared to suit the timing of football games.
As a result of the many hours they spend in front of the TV, children are in effect being parented by network producers rather than by their own parents. Television teaches children that rude, irresponsible behavior is not only acceptable but also glamorous. Children learn about sex and violence apart from their consequences, emotional attachments, and responsibilities. They learn to act impulsively, without reflection or advice from elders. Qualities such as wisdom and processes like thinking through a problem are difficult to express on a television screen, especially when the medium depends on sensationalism and shock rather than character and insight.
US Surgeon General David Satcher stated in a 2000 report on youth violence that violent television programming and video games have become a public-health issue and that "repeated exposure to violent entertainment during early childhood causes more aggressive behavior throughout a child's life.3
The American Psychological Association (APA) notes that children who regularly watch violence on television are more fearful and distrustful of the world, less bothered by violence, and slower to intervene or call for help when they see fighting or destructive behavior.4
A Los Angeles Times story reported that 91 percent of children polled said they felt "upset" or "scared" by violence on television.5
A University of Pennsylvania study found that children's TV shows contain roughly 20 acts of violence each hour.6
After watching violent programs, the APA reports, children are more likely to act out aggressively, and children who are regularly exposed to violent programming show a greater tendency toward hitting, arguing, leaving tasks unfinished, and impatience.7
The first two years of life is when the greatest and most rapid development of the brain occurs. As all parents know, a child's mind is different from an adult's, and the differences go beyond children's innocent and often poetic perceptions of the world. While the adult brain has two distinct hemispheres, the infant brain is a single receptacle of sensory experience in which neither side has developed or overpowered the other. Until they learn language, children absorb experience using a kind of nonverbal "thinking," characterized later in the brain's development as a right hemispheric function. When language begins, each hemisphere seems to be equally developed. In its structural and biochemical sense, the brain doesn't reach its full maturation until about age 12.
By maturation, the left hemisphere typically develops as the dominant side, controlling the verbal and logical functions of the brain, while the right hemisphere controls spatial and visual functions. For many years, such development was thought to be genetically predetermined and unaffected by life experiences. Today, however, this belief has changed. Although the acquisition of language appears to be universal, we now recognize that the abilities required for expression and reasoning are not automatic. Watching television threatens the development of these abilities because it requires a suspension of active cognition.
The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that children under the age of two not watch TV or videos, and that older children watch only one to two hours per day of nonviolent, educational TV. Young children watching TV are routinely described as transfixed, passive, and nonverbal. One of television's appeals for parents is that it serves as an immediate way to silence and sedate active toddlers. But such nonverbal absorption does more than simply relax and amuse preschoolers. Language spoken by actors on TV does not have the same effect as real-life language experiences. The Journal of Broadcasting reported that language skills among American children declined as TV viewing time increased.8
In real life, conversation is reciprocal and participatory; it allows time for reflection, questions, and encouragement. Television, however, is a one- way street, and you had better stay glued, ask no questions, and take no time for thought, because the next scene will appear in seconds and there is no rewind. As a result, children learn not to think but to remain passive and unresponsive to whatever stimulus appears before them. Television conditions them to absorb images without mental effort and to expect rapid change. Since young children's questions and imaginations are the cornerstone of their learning processes, remaining unresponsive hour after hour, day after day, year after year surely affects their intellectual, emotional, and moral development.
Fantasy play, a critical component of childhood, allows children to explore different situations with varying responses and outcomes. While books and storytelling nourish fantasy play, fantasy watching does not foster the same reaction. The US Department of Education reported that 81 percent of children ages two to seven watch TV unsupervised,9 which means that young children enter a world of fantasy without the guidance and oversight of an adult. Research by the Yale University Family Television and Consultation Center reveals that imagination decreases as TV watching increases.10
TV teaches children to be amused by its images instead of encouraging kids to create their own. It dulls the mind by the power of its fast-moving pictures, supplanting the mental activity necessary to follow in the mind's eye a book or a storyteller's tale. The Yale Center reports that complex language and grammar skills are directly linked to fantasy play, and that children who create fantasy play are more tolerant, peaceful, patient, and happy.
Many children become habituated to TV by their parents, who desire a break from their child's activity and attention. However, the short-term benefit of a quiet, mesmerized child may actually lead to a greater dependence on adult supervision by creating children who are less capable of amusing themselves. By supplanting their imaginations, creating fast-paced pictures, and transforming active minds into passive recipients, TV teaches mental lethargy.
For a child raised on hourly doses of TV, boredom is a common component of later childhood. In refusing to use TV during the preschool years, parents may save themselves from constantly having to create amusements for their children.
The best way to keep TV from becoming an issue with children, of course, is not to begin using it. If a TV is present in the home, it is vital to establish clear rules on its use and to maintain these rules. Never make TV a reward or a punishment; this only heightens its power. When starting the withdrawal from TV, explain why you are making these changes and that it is not a punishment. The first month will be the most difficult. Children may cry or plead, but you can remain firm if you keep in mind that you are freeing them from an addiction.
It is also imperative that you help your children learn how to fill the time that they formerly spent watching TV. Work with them to nurture interests, discover hobbies, and explore new possibilities. Begin a nightly read-aloud for the entire family. Take walks after breakfast or dinner. Share your hobbies-sewing, knitting, baking bread-with them. Learn to play instruments and make music as a family. Encourage children to help with work around the house and yard. Visit neighbors and relatives. Tell stories and pass on your family history. Build a birdhouse. Go bowling. Go sledding. Finger paint. Color. Practice yoga together. Involve your children in the daily activities of the house, and encourage yourself and your family to rekindle the flame of exploration and discovery, away from the draw of the flickering blue screen.
NOTES
1. American Academy of Pediatrics, "Television and the Family" (June 1999), http://www.aap.org/.
2. D. A. Gentile and D. A. Walsh, Media Quotient: National Survey of Family Media Habits, Knowledge, and Attitudes (Washington, DC: National Institute on Media and the Family, 1999).
3. "NAPNAP Supports Surgeon General on TV/Video Stance," press release, National Association of Pediatric Nurse Associates & Practitioners, Cherry Hill, NJ, February 2, 2000.
4. American Psychological Association, "Violence on Television" (report), http://www.apa.org/.
5. "Living in Fear," Los Angeles Times , August 23, 1998 .
6. G. L. Gerbner, M. Morgan, and N. Signorielli , "Living with Television: The Dynamics of the Cultivation Process," in J. Bryant and D. Zillman, eds., Perspectives on Media Effects (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1986).
7. See Note 4.
8. Gary W. Selnow and Erwin P. Bettinghaus, "Television Exposure and Language Development," Journal of Broadcasting 26 (Winter 1982): 1.
9. US Department of Education, "Strong Families, Strong Schools : Building Community Partnerships for Learning" (report), 1994.
10. Dorothy Singer, J. Singer, and D. Zuckerman, Use TV to Your Child's Advantage: The Parent's Guide . Yale University Family Television Research and Consultation Center , 1998. npin.org/library/1998/n00049/n00049.html
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Baldwin, Rahima. You Are Your Child's First Teacher . Celestial Arts, 2000.
Bennett, Steve and Ruth. 365 TV-Free Activities You Can Do with Your Child . Bob Adams, 1991.
Healy, Jane M. Failure to Connect: How Computers Affect Our Children's Minds-For Better and Worse. Simon and Schuster, 1998.
The Killing Screens: Media and the Culture of Violence (video recording). Sut Jhally, executive producer and director. Media Education Foundation, 1994.
Liebert, Robert M. The Early Window: Effects of Television on Children and Youth. Pergamon Press, 1988.
Mander, Jerry. Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television. Morrow, 1978.
Minow, Newton . Abandoned in the Wasteland: Children, TV, and the First Amendment. Hill and Wang, 1995.
National Association of Pediatric Nurse Associates & Practitioners (NAPNAP), 1101 Kings Highway North, Cherry Hill, NJ 08034, 856-667-1776, http://www.napnap.org/.
National Institute on Media and the Family, 606 24th Avenue, Suite 606 , Minneapolis , MN 55454 , 888-672-5437, http://www.mediaandthefamily.org/.
Postman, Neil. The Disappearance of Childhoo d. Delacorte Press, 1982.
Trelease, Jim. The Read-Aloud Handbook . Penguin Books, 1985.
TV-Turnoff Network, 1611 Connecticut Avenue, NW 3A, Washington , DC 20009 , 202- 518-5556, http://www.tvturnoff.org/.
US Senate Judiciary Committee Staff Report , "Children, Violence, and the Media," 1999.
Wilkins, Joan Anderson. Breaking the TV Habit . Scribner, 1982.
Winn, Marie. The Plug-In Drug . Penguin Books, 1985.
For more information about television, see the following articles in past issues of Mothering : "Television and Film Entertainment," no. 50; and "Preventing TV Addiction: Ten Hints for Parents," no. 31.
Ann Vorisek White lives with her husband, Harry, and their two cats in the Berkshire Mountains of Connecticut . She has a master's degree in library science and is a children's librarian in Litchfield County .
This article was published in:
http://www.mothering.com/articles/growing_child/consumerism/turn_off_tv.html
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
Childhood TV Viewing a Risk for Behavior Problems
Here is a new article just published, which is warning parents and educator about the risk of nurturing TV viewing habits. This article was published in numerous medical website like http://www.physorg.com/news110427509.html
For Immediate Release: October 1, 2007
Childhood TV Viewing a Risk for Behavior Problems
Timing of Media Exposure Plays a Vital Role in Outcomes
Daily television viewing for two or more hours in early childhood canlead to behavioral problems and poor social skills, according to astudy of children 2.5 to 5.5 years of age conducted by researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
The Hopkins researchers found that the impact of TV viewing on a child's behaviorand social skills varied by the age at which the viewing occurred.
More importantly, heavy television viewing that decreased over timewas not associated with behavior or social problems. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that children under age 2 watch no television while children age 2 and older are limited to no more than two hours of daily viewing. The study is published in the October2007 issue of Pediatrics. "A number of studies have demonstrated negative effects of heavy television viewing. However, timing of exposure is an important consideration as reducing viewing to acceptable levels can reduce the risk of behavioral and social problems," said Kamila Mistry, MPH,lead author of the study and a doctoral candidate in the Bloomberg School's Department of Population, Family and Reproductive Health.
For the study, the research team analyzed data for 2,707 children collected from the Healthy Steps for Young Children national evaluation. Parents were surveyed about their child's television viewing habits and behavior at 2.5 and at 5.5 years of age. Sixteen percent of parents reported that their children watched two hours or more of television daily at 2.5 years of age (early exposure), while 15 percent reported that their children watched two hours or more of television daily at 5.5 years of age (concurrent exposure). One in five parents reported that their children watched two hours or more of television daily at both 2.5 years and at 5.5years of age (sustained exposure). Sustained exposure to television was associated with behavioral problems. However, early exposure that was subsequently reduced was not a risk for behavior problems. Concurrent viewing was associated with fewer social skills, while sustained and early viewing had less of an impact on social skill development. The study also found that having a television in the child's bedroom at 5.5 years of age was associated with behavioral problems and poor sleep. Forty-one percent of the children included in the study had a television in his or her bedroom."Children who reduced their viewing by 5.5 years of age were not at greater risk for behavior and social problems," said Cynthia Minkovitz, MD, MPP, senior author of the study and associate professor with the School's Department of Population, Family andReproductive Health. "It is vital for clinicians to emphasize the importance of reducing television viewing in early childhood among those children with early use.""Children's Television Exposure and Behavioral and Social Outcomes at 5.5 years: Does Timing of Exposure Matter?" was written by Kamila B.Mistry, MPH; Cynthia S. Minkovitz, MD, MPP; Donna M. Strobino, PhD;and Dina L. G. Borzekowski, EdD.Data collection for this research was supported by the Agency forHealthcare Research and Quality, the Commonwealth Fund.
Saturday, September 29, 2007
the use of television in the classroom
These days my main worry is the use of TV in the Kindergarten class of my children...
It is such a chock for me when my kids come home telling me “what was on TV today”
In their class, TV is used as a relaxing time… Well, is TV really relaxing?
Many researches prove that it is not…
Happily I am not the only parents concerned by the use of TV in the classroom. For their defense, the teacher show us how good the quality of the programs are, and this is true, they are showing good programs, so we can feel safe on the content.
Unhappily, the content is one side of the question, the HOW a program is screened is a major issue. Leaving a child “relax” in front of the television should not happen in school. This “attitude” is far from being educational, even with the best content ever.
On the other end, the children could learn to become active viewers! Dr. Faith Rogow explains that very well in her article “Don't turn Off the Lights: Tips for Classroom Use of ITV” (http://www.myetv.org/education/k-12/resources/classroom_tv.cfm)
Here is a copy of the article:
There are lots of ways to watch television and our purpose for viewing has a significant impact on what we take away from the experience. Most TV viewing is for entertainment and relaxation, and that's fine--unless we want people to remember what they've seen. Television can be a powerful educational tool, but it we want our students to absorb specific content from what they see, we need to give them a model for viewing that is active and critical. For starters,
It is such a chock for me when my kids come home telling me “what was on TV today”
In their class, TV is used as a relaxing time… Well, is TV really relaxing?
Many researches prove that it is not…
Happily I am not the only parents concerned by the use of TV in the classroom. For their defense, the teacher show us how good the quality of the programs are, and this is true, they are showing good programs, so we can feel safe on the content.
Unhappily, the content is one side of the question, the HOW a program is screened is a major issue. Leaving a child “relax” in front of the television should not happen in school. This “attitude” is far from being educational, even with the best content ever.
On the other end, the children could learn to become active viewers! Dr. Faith Rogow explains that very well in her article “Don't turn Off the Lights: Tips for Classroom Use of ITV” (http://www.myetv.org/education/k-12/resources/classroom_tv.cfm)
Here is a copy of the article:
There are lots of ways to watch television and our purpose for viewing has a significant impact on what we take away from the experience. Most TV viewing is for entertainment and relaxation, and that's fine--unless we want people to remember what they've seen. Television can be a powerful educational tool, but it we want our students to absorb specific content from what they see, we need to give them a model for viewing that is active and critical. For starters,
- view from videotape rather than real-time broadcasts
- don't be constrained by programs; only use the segments you need
- don't use the television as a babysitter
In addition:
- Think about what you are trying to accomplish. If you can achieve your goal without using video, you may want to reconsider your use of TV. However, video can help accomplish things you can't do any other way. TV does the following very well:
- Spark interest in a new subject area. Imaginative and quick paced video can inspire your students to pursue a subject.
- Demonstrate something you can't show any other way, such as a satellite's view of changing weather patterns, the inside of a human body, a math concept that involves motion of 3-D geometry, the sounds and sights of a rainforest, the sound of various accents in a foreign language, a chemistry experiment that is too dangerous or too expensive to do in the classroom, etc.
- Enrich content by demonstrating new applications or insights.
- Practice a skill such as note taking, problem solving, predicting, listening, etc.
- Review a lesson you have already presented so the students can hear and see it in a different way.
- View actively - Think of the TV as a teacher. Do you turn off the lights when you talk ? Would you be satisfied with a class that sat and stared at you for thirty minutes without responding or interacting? The TV can't act as teacher if students aren't active. Interactive viewing requires three simple steps:
1. Prepare -let students know why they are watching, what to look for, or what you will ask when the video is over. The younger the student, the more detailed the description should be of what they are going to see.
2. Participate - View interactively. Sing along, answer questions aloud as they are posed, pause to discuss possible outcomes or solutions before the video presents them, pause to check for comprehension, pause to predict action, write down clues, etc.
3. Connect to other activities - Bring the video lessons off the screen and into the classroom or home by choosing follow-up activities that connect the viewing experience to hands-on exercises or real-life experience. With younger students, be sure to explain the connections between the video and the activities you do.
Copyright: Insighters Educational Consulting 1997
Faith_Rogow@wskg.pbs.org
Thursday, September 06, 2007
Please Teachers, do not show TV in class as a daily routine
We all know how difficult and challenging it can be for parents to protect their children from Medias influences.
Raising a child TV free or aware of the potential effect of TV is a big challenge in this world where TV is everywhere.
So I felt really bad when I learned that TV programs were shown to the children in their school on a daily basis. And what kind of programs?
No cartoon please.
School is a learning environment; I would expect a school to nurture the love for books, to encourage children to satisfy their needs for imaginary tales through books!
Not by turning on the Television: This totally passive way to satisfy their need for escape.
I would understand the use of TV as a tool, a tool to show documentaries which illustrate a subject reviewed in the classroom.
I would eventually understand a video with songs to stimulate their interests.
I would understand a video of cartoon ones in a while as the subject of a discussion in the class.
But showing every day cartoons for 20 minutes! Please do not do that.
Listening to a tape would be a lot better. Some children could close their eyes, relax and imagine their own images and some other would do the same with their eyes open. In any case it would be a lot more relaxing; any studies would show that to you.
Please teachers, do not do that to our children.
Raising a child TV free or aware of the potential effect of TV is a big challenge in this world where TV is everywhere.
So I felt really bad when I learned that TV programs were shown to the children in their school on a daily basis. And what kind of programs?
No cartoon please.
School is a learning environment; I would expect a school to nurture the love for books, to encourage children to satisfy their needs for imaginary tales through books!
Not by turning on the Television: This totally passive way to satisfy their need for escape.
I would understand the use of TV as a tool, a tool to show documentaries which illustrate a subject reviewed in the classroom.
I would eventually understand a video with songs to stimulate their interests.
I would understand a video of cartoon ones in a while as the subject of a discussion in the class.
But showing every day cartoons for 20 minutes! Please do not do that.
Listening to a tape would be a lot better. Some children could close their eyes, relax and imagine their own images and some other would do the same with their eyes open. In any case it would be a lot more relaxing; any studies would show that to you.
Please teachers, do not do that to our children.
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
Educational Videos May Not Make Baby Brainy, Study Finds
Researchers at the University of Washington have found that the videos marketed by Baby Einstein, Brainy Baby and other producers of videos for infants may not make babies smarter and could even have the opposite effect, according to The Seattle Post-Intelligencer.
Such videos could actually slow language development, the study revealed.
The report, released on Tuesday, concluded that for every hour children spent watching those programs, they understood an average of six to eight fewer words than infants who didn’t watch them, the Post-Intelligencer reported.
The babies exposed to the videos also got scores on language skills tests that were 17 percent lower than those of the babies who weren’t.
“We don’t think there is any evidence that it is good for development at all,” study co-author Andrew Meltzoff told the Post-Intelligencer.
But the negative impact on growth seemed to depend on the ages of the children. Babies 8 to 16 months old who watched the videos seemed to have delayed retention of vocabulary, whereas those 17 to 24 months old weren't affected.
read article at: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/326708_babytv08.html
Such videos could actually slow language development, the study revealed.
The report, released on Tuesday, concluded that for every hour children spent watching those programs, they understood an average of six to eight fewer words than infants who didn’t watch them, the Post-Intelligencer reported.
The babies exposed to the videos also got scores on language skills tests that were 17 percent lower than those of the babies who weren’t.
“We don’t think there is any evidence that it is good for development at all,” study co-author Andrew Meltzoff told the Post-Intelligencer.
But the negative impact on growth seemed to depend on the ages of the children. Babies 8 to 16 months old who watched the videos seemed to have delayed retention of vocabulary, whereas those 17 to 24 months old weren't affected.
read article at: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/326708_babytv08.html
Friday, March 02, 2007
question of the day: image of death
What about seeing image of death on TV?
When my kids screened this amazing documentary series about Homo Sapiens, they saw 2 of them drowning.
The images where soft but "real". I mean by real, that it was not a cartoon, or a glamorized death from a movie.
It was simple, like most of the time in real life. but thoses scenes raised many questions from my daughter and many discussions around death, as, when watching meat of fish in the plate: "is this dead?" "what was this when it was alive?"
Since those scenes, death stays the main question.
I did interrogate myself about the experience.
Was it too early for them to witness such images?
Well, my conclusion was no. And I rather have them get those healthy reactions, being puzzled, even a little uncomfortable with this first contact with human death.
I would not have like for them to see it in a cartoon or a movie, and do not even notice...
Thursday, February 01, 2007
What about Dora?
After many of my friends spoke about Dora in a positive way, I decided to watch 2 shows of it that we had on a DVD we got as a gift.
My kids were screaming at the screen, answering to Dora, kind of getting up to dance when they were supposed to (I had to encouragethem to get up).
I was first surprised by this "interactivity", with the arrow moving on the screen it felt more like a computer game to me in fact. Dora encourages children to repeat & participate in the show. Dora is always on a mission.
In many ways it reminded me of birthday party entertainment. Entertainers usually started by exciting the children, making them scream, feel as team, overcome obstacles, and it is a lot of fun!
In the show, everything has to be repeated over & over. At the end of each trip they shout We did it! We did it! Which is a little egobooster for the little ones.
I found the pace of the editing ok, not too fast. But at the end, I did not feel really comfortable with the show…
In fact, I did not like the show, the shouting, the repetition but most of all the storyline. It is so simplistic, basic. My children are far more intelligent than that!
I already exposed them to far more sophisticated programs with complex language and concept that they enjoyed and followed easily. In fact, I will use this program in my media education curriculum.
I would like to read your feeling and opinions about that show. Please do not hesitate to post your comment.
My kids were screaming at the screen, answering to Dora, kind of getting up to dance when they were supposed to (I had to encouragethem to get up).
I was first surprised by this "interactivity", with the arrow moving on the screen it felt more like a computer game to me in fact. Dora encourages children to repeat & participate in the show. Dora is always on a mission.
In many ways it reminded me of birthday party entertainment. Entertainers usually started by exciting the children, making them scream, feel as team, overcome obstacles, and it is a lot of fun!
In the show, everything has to be repeated over & over. At the end of each trip they shout We did it! We did it! Which is a little egobooster for the little ones.
I found the pace of the editing ok, not too fast. But at the end, I did not feel really comfortable with the show…
In fact, I did not like the show, the shouting, the repetition but most of all the storyline. It is so simplistic, basic. My children are far more intelligent than that!
I already exposed them to far more sophisticated programs with complex language and concept that they enjoyed and followed easily. In fact, I will use this program in my media education curriculum.
I would like to read your feeling and opinions about that show. Please do not hesitate to post your comment.
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Choosing the video = feeding our kids imagination
We started our new year 2007 with a great hike!
It was so much fun. We stopped at a huge rock that we climbed and then my 4 and half twins took some rocks and started to break some other rocks. “I am a homo sapiens” said my boy. “And me I am a homo erectus” said my girl.
Some may wonder, where did they got those names?
Well, very simple, they watched the documentary “A Species' Odyssey” by Jacques Malaterre. And here are what this documentary fed their imagination with:
The story begins with Orrorin tugenesis, the first hominid, who takes the first step for humankind as a way of coping in the high grasses of Kenya.
We encounter Lucy (Australopithecus anamensis), who some believe is the "grandmother" of mankind, as she tries to fit in with a group of bipeds.
We meet Homo habilis - explorer, inventor, juggler of ideas and man of power.
We watch Homo erectus as he masters fire and organizes the first-ever barbeque in history.
We follow the steps of Homo ergaster as he ventures out of the African cradle for the first time, forced by hunger or perhaps curiosity.
Finally, we meet the first Homo sapiens, who ultimately survive and thrive and dominate the planet.
They were fascinated, I was too!
When I told one of my friends that my kids were reenacting the beginning of humankind, she said “I wish mine does it too instead of playing princess all day long”.
Not that playing princess is bad or good, but
staying aware of what we are feeding our children brain with, seems relevant…
Annick
It was so much fun. We stopped at a huge rock that we climbed and then my 4 and half twins took some rocks and started to break some other rocks. “I am a homo sapiens” said my boy. “And me I am a homo erectus” said my girl.
Some may wonder, where did they got those names?
Well, very simple, they watched the documentary “A Species' Odyssey” by Jacques Malaterre. And here are what this documentary fed their imagination with:
The story begins with Orrorin tugenesis, the first hominid, who takes the first step for humankind as a way of coping in the high grasses of Kenya.
We encounter Lucy (Australopithecus anamensis), who some believe is the "grandmother" of mankind, as she tries to fit in with a group of bipeds.
We meet Homo habilis - explorer, inventor, juggler of ideas and man of power.
We watch Homo erectus as he masters fire and organizes the first-ever barbeque in history.
We follow the steps of Homo ergaster as he ventures out of the African cradle for the first time, forced by hunger or perhaps curiosity.
Finally, we meet the first Homo sapiens, who ultimately survive and thrive and dominate the planet.
They were fascinated, I was too!
When I told one of my friends that my kids were reenacting the beginning of humankind, she said “I wish mine does it too instead of playing princess all day long”.
Not that playing princess is bad or good, but
staying aware of what we are feeding our children brain with, seems relevant…
Annick
Saturday, November 18, 2006
let's imagine
Let’s imagine different commercials:
No more junk food, candies, video game, toys, TV show, medication...
let's imagine that commercials speak about fruits, vegetables, dairy, sport, exercises, water, board game played all together, visit to museum, hiking and discovering nature, cooking, growing vegetables and flowers, making all kind of things with our hands, writing, reading, drawing, singing, playing music, talking with friend, enjoying farmer market...
Just imagine the content of each of those commercials, like picturing the one for board game: the family together laughing and talking, the one for the farmer market with the children choosing the vegetables and the fruits with the parents...
Continue to imagine...
Then imagine that all those commercials are aired thousand of time a week, that your children are seeing them.
What would be the result?
What kind of thoughts they will have?
What kind of desire, needs?
...
No more junk food, candies, video game, toys, TV show, medication...
let's imagine that commercials speak about fruits, vegetables, dairy, sport, exercises, water, board game played all together, visit to museum, hiking and discovering nature, cooking, growing vegetables and flowers, making all kind of things with our hands, writing, reading, drawing, singing, playing music, talking with friend, enjoying farmer market...
Just imagine the content of each of those commercials, like picturing the one for board game: the family together laughing and talking, the one for the farmer market with the children choosing the vegetables and the fruits with the parents...
Continue to imagine...
Then imagine that all those commercials are aired thousand of time a week, that your children are seeing them.
What would be the result?
What kind of thoughts they will have?
What kind of desire, needs?
...
Sunday, November 12, 2006
TV’s Grip on Your Toddler’s Health (part 2)
I really look at this article as a really good one!
The author wonder what toddlers learn from the example of parents spending their time of leisure in front of TV or computer?
Here is an extract and the link where you can read it all:
TV’s Grip on Your Toddler’s Health
By Dr. Richard Visser
"If a child eats while watching TV, she isn’t paying attention to either the food or her stomach, and it can be easy for her to eat until she’s beyond her “full” point. The foods most craved as a snack are the same high-fat, high-sugar, low-fiber products that are being marketed to your child every five minutes during kids’ programming. A 2006 study by the Harvard School of Public Health reported that for every hour a child spent watching TV, they added 167 calories to their diet per day—primarily from foods frequently advertised on TV."
According to his source toddlers must have 60 minutes of physical activity daily (and) should not be sedentary for more than 60 minutes at a time (except when sleeping) in order to prevent obesity.
Well, I do not know what you think but 60 minutes does not seem enough to me...
Then, Richard Visser lists ways to keep the children moving: "Limit the time your kids spend in front of the TV. Keep TVs and computers out of bedrooms...
He cites ways to Prevent Unconscious Eating advocating No TV or games while eating and insist "your kids model your own behavior, so if they see you snacking in front of the TV or computer, they’ll want to do it, too.”
The author wonder what toddlers learn from the example of parents spending their time of leisure in front of TV or computer?
Here is an extract and the link where you can read it all:
TV’s Grip on Your Toddler’s Health
By Dr. Richard Visser
"If a child eats while watching TV, she isn’t paying attention to either the food or her stomach, and it can be easy for her to eat until she’s beyond her “full” point. The foods most craved as a snack are the same high-fat, high-sugar, low-fiber products that are being marketed to your child every five minutes during kids’ programming. A 2006 study by the Harvard School of Public Health reported that for every hour a child spent watching TV, they added 167 calories to their diet per day—primarily from foods frequently advertised on TV."
According to his source toddlers must have 60 minutes of physical activity daily (and) should not be sedentary for more than 60 minutes at a time (except when sleeping) in order to prevent obesity.
Well, I do not know what you think but 60 minutes does not seem enough to me...
Then, Richard Visser lists ways to keep the children moving: "Limit the time your kids spend in front of the TV. Keep TVs and computers out of bedrooms...
He cites ways to Prevent Unconscious Eating advocating No TV or games while eating and insist "your kids model your own behavior, so if they see you snacking in front of the TV or computer, they’ll want to do it, too.”
the advertising impact on increaded weight gain
Well I do not agree with the 2 hours a day of TV for children over two, I think it is already two much as I think that 20 minutes/day and not everyday is plenty enough for children between 2 and 5... but other than that, I think this article (found in Los Angeles Family, oct 2006) is good and interesting:
Mass Media & Child Obesity (part one)
The Advertising Impact on Increased Weight Gain
by Dr. Richard Visser
The advertising industry makes junk food seem irresistible, and it may well be, as recent research shows that children could become physically addicted to junk food. In a recent study, Dr. Robert Lustig from the University of California, San Francisco suggests that childhood obesity arises from foods that are high in fat and fructose and low in fiber. When children eat these “insulinogenic” foods, the insulin not only increases the effects of the pleasure-chemical dopamine (making the child want to eat more of the same food) but also reduces the effects of the hormone leptin, making the child want to eat more and be less active.
Everywhere you find children, you find advertisements for these very foods, promising adventure, popularity, fun—and so much more—if they’d only buy and eat some of the product. The Institute of Medicine, which reported in 2004 on childhood obesity following a request by the U.S. Congress, has concluded that “Food and beverage advertising on television influences children ages 2–11 years to prefer and purchase high-calorie and low-nutrient foods and beverages.”
Such early establishment of brand loyalty is irresistible to advertisers, who have also discovered that children under the age of eight cannot distinguish the difference between a commercial and the TV program or movie it appears with. Kids think that commercials are presenting information, and they digest it with the same seriousness as Dora’s advice to “Share toys!”— particularly if it’s Dora who’s saying “Buy and eat this candy!” With your child’s favorite cartoon character urging her every five minutes to eat Fake-Flake cereal, it’s no wonder that she has a temper tantrum when you won’t buy it at the grocery store.
This brings us back to the question of nagging and the other routines kids go through to get the food they want into the grocery cart. The advertising industry has actually researched nagging through psychological studies designed to identify parents who give in to whining (parents who are divorced or have multiple children, for example) and detailed which purchases and outings are a result of whining, a tool for advertisers who want to ensure such purchases and outings happen more often.
Don’t despair. There are many things you can do to outmaneuver the advertising industry and keep your kids out of their grasp.
Turn the TV off during mealtimes. Keep the TV in the family room so you can monitor what your child is watching and for how long. Also, limit TV viewing to two hours a day for children over two and no TV at all for kids under two. Set a timer to ensure your kids are sticking with their two-hour limit. (Internet or video game time is included in those two hours, by the way.)
Does your child know when a commercial starts and her program ends? Watch TV with your child, and identify commercials. Point out when each advertisement begins and ends by using a timer.
Does your child recognize the purpose of commercials? Ask questions like, “What is the commercial selling? Do you want to buy it? Who makes money from this? How are they attracting your attention? Do you think the people in the ad are cool? Happy? Healthy? Why?” Help your child understand that the point of advertising is convincing kids to buy something.
Don’t forget about other types of advertising. Ads are everywhere—see how many different types you can identify together. Go to some online games—the new frontier for advertisers, who relish the long blocks of time players spend engrossed in games—and talk about what they’re selling while you’re playing. Find product placement in website games, movies, and TV, and see how many name-brand products or logos appear. Talk about why those products are there.
Take advantage of the great resources available from organizations like Commercial-Free Childhood (www.commercialfreechildhood.org) and the ADA (www.eatright.org). Make sure your children take advertisements with a grain of salt instead of that overly generous helping of sugar.
Dr. Richard Visser is the director of the Visser Wellness and Research Center in Aruba, as well as CEO of SimplyH, LLC and Simply Toddler, LLC in Los Angeles. He works worldwide to raise awareness of proper nutrition for healthy and fit toddlers and children.
http://www.lafamily.com/display_article.php?id=1433
Mass Media & Child Obesity (part one)
The Advertising Impact on Increased Weight Gain
by Dr. Richard Visser
The advertising industry makes junk food seem irresistible, and it may well be, as recent research shows that children could become physically addicted to junk food. In a recent study, Dr. Robert Lustig from the University of California, San Francisco suggests that childhood obesity arises from foods that are high in fat and fructose and low in fiber. When children eat these “insulinogenic” foods, the insulin not only increases the effects of the pleasure-chemical dopamine (making the child want to eat more of the same food) but also reduces the effects of the hormone leptin, making the child want to eat more and be less active.
Everywhere you find children, you find advertisements for these very foods, promising adventure, popularity, fun—and so much more—if they’d only buy and eat some of the product. The Institute of Medicine, which reported in 2004 on childhood obesity following a request by the U.S. Congress, has concluded that “Food and beverage advertising on television influences children ages 2–11 years to prefer and purchase high-calorie and low-nutrient foods and beverages.”
Such early establishment of brand loyalty is irresistible to advertisers, who have also discovered that children under the age of eight cannot distinguish the difference between a commercial and the TV program or movie it appears with. Kids think that commercials are presenting information, and they digest it with the same seriousness as Dora’s advice to “Share toys!”— particularly if it’s Dora who’s saying “Buy and eat this candy!” With your child’s favorite cartoon character urging her every five minutes to eat Fake-Flake cereal, it’s no wonder that she has a temper tantrum when you won’t buy it at the grocery store.
This brings us back to the question of nagging and the other routines kids go through to get the food they want into the grocery cart. The advertising industry has actually researched nagging through psychological studies designed to identify parents who give in to whining (parents who are divorced or have multiple children, for example) and detailed which purchases and outings are a result of whining, a tool for advertisers who want to ensure such purchases and outings happen more often.
Don’t despair. There are many things you can do to outmaneuver the advertising industry and keep your kids out of their grasp.
Turn the TV off during mealtimes. Keep the TV in the family room so you can monitor what your child is watching and for how long. Also, limit TV viewing to two hours a day for children over two and no TV at all for kids under two. Set a timer to ensure your kids are sticking with their two-hour limit. (Internet or video game time is included in those two hours, by the way.)
Does your child know when a commercial starts and her program ends? Watch TV with your child, and identify commercials. Point out when each advertisement begins and ends by using a timer.
Does your child recognize the purpose of commercials? Ask questions like, “What is the commercial selling? Do you want to buy it? Who makes money from this? How are they attracting your attention? Do you think the people in the ad are cool? Happy? Healthy? Why?” Help your child understand that the point of advertising is convincing kids to buy something.
Don’t forget about other types of advertising. Ads are everywhere—see how many different types you can identify together. Go to some online games—the new frontier for advertisers, who relish the long blocks of time players spend engrossed in games—and talk about what they’re selling while you’re playing. Find product placement in website games, movies, and TV, and see how many name-brand products or logos appear. Talk about why those products are there.
Take advantage of the great resources available from organizations like Commercial-Free Childhood (www.commercialfreechildhood.org) and the ADA (www.eatright.org). Make sure your children take advertisements with a grain of salt instead of that overly generous helping of sugar.
Dr. Richard Visser is the director of the Visser Wellness and Research Center in Aruba, as well as CEO of SimplyH, LLC and Simply Toddler, LLC in Los Angeles. He works worldwide to raise awareness of proper nutrition for healthy and fit toddlers and children.
http://www.lafamily.com/display_article.php?id=1433
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Baby Einstein video’s syndrome
It seems obvious that Baby Einstein videos are really well promoted. But I wonder who really expose their babies to those?
Sure, somebody gave me one tape when my babies were born and I (not them) screened it, I was horrified. For me it felt like the mini version of music videos, so even before developping the MTV's syndrome, babies will be able to develop the Baby Einstein video's syndrome...
Following is an article from MSNBC: URL: http://www.msnbc. msn.com/id/ 15499211/
Can you build a brainier baby? Experts doubt that newfangled toys, videos promote smarts
By Victoria Clayton
MSNBC contributor Updated: 4:13 a.m. PT Nov 6, 2006
Since July and August are traditionally the most popular birth months, there are many people out there who are just now discovering a little bundle of joy is headed their way. If you're one of them, after you exhaust the pregnancy books and Web sites, you'll inevitably stumble across the books, videos, DVDs, CDs, toys and exercise devices that promise they can turn your newborn into a mini Mensa member. Undoubtedly, many tots will be getting these gifts from Santa this year.
Some products claim they teach babies to read in several languages, play the violin and do advanced math or computer programming before they're even out of diapers. Others make more vague (and, thus, slightly more reasonable) claims such as “creates engaging learning opportunities” or “specially designed for your baby’s social, emotional, cognitive and physical development.
”The market for infant “developmental” videos and DVDs alone was more than $100 million in the United States in 2004. Nobody knows just how many books, CDs, television shows, toys or activity classes are sold based on the premise that smart kids are made by exposing babies to the proper brain and body stimulation from the minute they open their eyes.
The premise behind this “smarter baby” craze isn’t a bad one, says Claire Lerner, director of parenting resources for Zero to Three, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit organization dedicated to advancing the healthy development of babies and young children.
“The attention to brain development lately has really elevated people’s awareness and understanding of how important the early years are socially, emotionally and intellectually,” says Lerner. “That’s a good thing. But, unfortunately, there’s also been a downside. Now it’s causing many parents a tremendous amount of anxiety and pressure.
” Bad parents?
Savvy marketers, says Lerner, have convinced parents that if they don’t use certain products and programs, they’re being negligent. It’s not only not true, but some of the products could actually be counterproductive, experts say.
“As far as infant videos, DVDs and computer programs, for example, a lot of developmental or educational claims are made implicitly or explicitly in terms of testimonials but most of the claims are outlandish and completely false,” says Dimitri A. Christakis, director of the Child Health Institute at the University of Washington in Seattle.
The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends no screen time, in fact, in the first two years of life.
Studies have found that even programming such as "Sesame Street" that may be beneficial to older children could be ill advised for babies, says Christakis. “Heavy television and computer usage for children under 2 has been associated with attention problems, as well as cognitive and linguistic delays — no matter what the packaging claims,” he says.
There’s no reason to think toys, classes or exercise programs are harmful, but Lerner warns there’s little evidence either that they’re extremely helpful or worth an enormous amount of time, stress or money. In response, a spokesperson for Baby Einstein, which makes toys and videos, pointed to a statement on the company's Web site that says: "Baby Einstein products are not designed to make babies smarter. Rather, Baby Einstein products are specifically designed to engage babies and provide parents with tools to help expose their little ones to the world around them in playful and enriching ways, stimulating a baby's natural curiosity."
And in a written statement sent to MSNBC.com, the company disputed the notion that TV is harmful for young children: "The Baby Einstein Company believes that when used appropriately, television can be a useful learning tool that parents and little ones can enjoy together."
But Lerner contends that what's simplest and cheapest is often best for a baby’s development. “Babies don’t need expensive toys or intricate programs," she says. "They certainly don’t need videos or computers. What they really need is interaction in a loving relationship with people they’re close to.” Exposing a baby to a lot of different stimulus in the first year of life is, indeed, healthy, says Janet Doman, co-author of "How Smart is Your Baby? Develop and Nurture Your Newborn’s Full Potential."
Doman explains that far too many generations of past treated the first year of life like a benign illness. “A ‘good infant’ traditionally was one who slept a lot, kept quite and wasn’t disruptive or inconvenient,” she says.
Now we know more about the brain. We know it’s changing and growing more rapidly during the first year than at any other time. We want babies to move, make noise and interact with their environments.
There’s no guarantee you’ll have an Einstein on your hands, but here are some simple and cheap strategies to help give your baby the best start:Let your baby move and explore. The car carrier, high chair, bouncy seat, swing and stroller should not be in heavy and constant rotation. It’s best for development if babies are able to move freely and eventually explore. When possible, sit with your baby on the floor in a safe area rather than put her in a device. “What we’ve found is that what’s best for the baby developmentally, unfortunately, has little to do with parent convenience,” says Doman, who is also director of The Institutes for the Achievement of Human Potential in Philadelphia, a nonprofit organization that works with brain-injured and well children.
Talk right from the start. You’ll drive non-parents crazy talking to your 3-month-old in the supermarket but, hey, at least you’re not talking politics. “If you’re taking a walk, talk about houses and what color they are, talk about the different animals or point out rocks and leaves,” says Lerner. Conversation lets babies know early on that you want to communicate with them, plus it builds a future vocabulary and helps children learn the way the world works.
Minimize screen time. “Computers are not as passive as television but infant computer games still have no proven developmental benefits,” says Christakis. “They’re just another electronic toy.” Research published in the journal American Behavioral Scientist found that watching a screen is far less developmentally beneficial than watching real life. So let your babe see and feel a real apple or tree whenever possible.
Victoria Clayton is a freelance writer based in California and co-author of "Fearless Pregnancy: Wisdom and Reassurance from a Doctor, a Midwife and a Mom," published by Fair Winds Press.© 2006 MSNBC Interactive© 2006 MSNBC Interactive
Sure, somebody gave me one tape when my babies were born and I (not them) screened it, I was horrified. For me it felt like the mini version of music videos, so even before developping the MTV's syndrome, babies will be able to develop the Baby Einstein video's syndrome...
Following is an article from MSNBC: URL: http://www.msnbc. msn.com/id/ 15499211/
Can you build a brainier baby? Experts doubt that newfangled toys, videos promote smarts
By Victoria Clayton
MSNBC contributor Updated: 4:13 a.m. PT Nov 6, 2006
Since July and August are traditionally the most popular birth months, there are many people out there who are just now discovering a little bundle of joy is headed their way. If you're one of them, after you exhaust the pregnancy books and Web sites, you'll inevitably stumble across the books, videos, DVDs, CDs, toys and exercise devices that promise they can turn your newborn into a mini Mensa member. Undoubtedly, many tots will be getting these gifts from Santa this year.
Some products claim they teach babies to read in several languages, play the violin and do advanced math or computer programming before they're even out of diapers. Others make more vague (and, thus, slightly more reasonable) claims such as “creates engaging learning opportunities” or “specially designed for your baby’s social, emotional, cognitive and physical development.
”The market for infant “developmental” videos and DVDs alone was more than $100 million in the United States in 2004. Nobody knows just how many books, CDs, television shows, toys or activity classes are sold based on the premise that smart kids are made by exposing babies to the proper brain and body stimulation from the minute they open their eyes.
The premise behind this “smarter baby” craze isn’t a bad one, says Claire Lerner, director of parenting resources for Zero to Three, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit organization dedicated to advancing the healthy development of babies and young children.
“The attention to brain development lately has really elevated people’s awareness and understanding of how important the early years are socially, emotionally and intellectually,” says Lerner. “That’s a good thing. But, unfortunately, there’s also been a downside. Now it’s causing many parents a tremendous amount of anxiety and pressure.
” Bad parents?
Savvy marketers, says Lerner, have convinced parents that if they don’t use certain products and programs, they’re being negligent. It’s not only not true, but some of the products could actually be counterproductive, experts say.
“As far as infant videos, DVDs and computer programs, for example, a lot of developmental or educational claims are made implicitly or explicitly in terms of testimonials but most of the claims are outlandish and completely false,” says Dimitri A. Christakis, director of the Child Health Institute at the University of Washington in Seattle.
The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends no screen time, in fact, in the first two years of life.
Studies have found that even programming such as "Sesame Street" that may be beneficial to older children could be ill advised for babies, says Christakis. “Heavy television and computer usage for children under 2 has been associated with attention problems, as well as cognitive and linguistic delays — no matter what the packaging claims,” he says.
There’s no reason to think toys, classes or exercise programs are harmful, but Lerner warns there’s little evidence either that they’re extremely helpful or worth an enormous amount of time, stress or money. In response, a spokesperson for Baby Einstein, which makes toys and videos, pointed to a statement on the company's Web site that says: "Baby Einstein products are not designed to make babies smarter. Rather, Baby Einstein products are specifically designed to engage babies and provide parents with tools to help expose their little ones to the world around them in playful and enriching ways, stimulating a baby's natural curiosity."
And in a written statement sent to MSNBC.com, the company disputed the notion that TV is harmful for young children: "The Baby Einstein Company believes that when used appropriately, television can be a useful learning tool that parents and little ones can enjoy together."
But Lerner contends that what's simplest and cheapest is often best for a baby’s development. “Babies don’t need expensive toys or intricate programs," she says. "They certainly don’t need videos or computers. What they really need is interaction in a loving relationship with people they’re close to.” Exposing a baby to a lot of different stimulus in the first year of life is, indeed, healthy, says Janet Doman, co-author of "How Smart is Your Baby? Develop and Nurture Your Newborn’s Full Potential."
Doman explains that far too many generations of past treated the first year of life like a benign illness. “A ‘good infant’ traditionally was one who slept a lot, kept quite and wasn’t disruptive or inconvenient,” she says.
Now we know more about the brain. We know it’s changing and growing more rapidly during the first year than at any other time. We want babies to move, make noise and interact with their environments.
There’s no guarantee you’ll have an Einstein on your hands, but here are some simple and cheap strategies to help give your baby the best start:Let your baby move and explore. The car carrier, high chair, bouncy seat, swing and stroller should not be in heavy and constant rotation. It’s best for development if babies are able to move freely and eventually explore. When possible, sit with your baby on the floor in a safe area rather than put her in a device. “What we’ve found is that what’s best for the baby developmentally, unfortunately, has little to do with parent convenience,” says Doman, who is also director of The Institutes for the Achievement of Human Potential in Philadelphia, a nonprofit organization that works with brain-injured and well children.
Talk right from the start. You’ll drive non-parents crazy talking to your 3-month-old in the supermarket but, hey, at least you’re not talking politics. “If you’re taking a walk, talk about houses and what color they are, talk about the different animals or point out rocks and leaves,” says Lerner. Conversation lets babies know early on that you want to communicate with them, plus it builds a future vocabulary and helps children learn the way the world works.
Minimize screen time. “Computers are not as passive as television but infant computer games still have no proven developmental benefits,” says Christakis. “They’re just another electronic toy.” Research published in the journal American Behavioral Scientist found that watching a screen is far less developmentally beneficial than watching real life. So let your babe see and feel a real apple or tree whenever possible.
Victoria Clayton is a freelance writer based in California and co-author of "Fearless Pregnancy: Wisdom and Reassurance from a Doctor, a Midwife and a Mom," published by Fair Winds Press.© 2006 MSNBC Interactive© 2006 MSNBC Interactive
Saturday, November 04, 2006
later attention problems for young TV watchers
This is a great article that every parents should read. Extracts:
May 24, 2004 LA Times
Losing focusYoung TV watchers may be at risk for later attention problems.
By Melissa Healy, Times Staff Writer
...But it was not until the publication last month of a study that followed about 2,600 kids from birth to age 7 that researchers were able to draw a firmer line between TV and rampant complaints - from teachers, parents and physicians - of attention problems among American kids.
The study showed that every average hour per day of television programming viewed by a child between the ages of 1 and 3 increased by 10% the probability that the child's parent would report attention problems at age 7. "Limiting young children's exposure to television as a medium during formative years of brain development may reduce children's subsequent risk of developing [attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder]," concluded the study's author, Dimitri A. Christakis of the University of Washington.
Experts on learning disabilities - even those who are deeply suspicious of TV - warned that many other factors, chief among them genetic inheritance, are at work in the twin syndromes known as attention deficit disorder (ADD), and attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Somewhere between 4% and 12% of American kids are believed to suffer from ADD or ADHD, and their behavior typically is marked by difficulty sustaining concentration, trouble organizing themselves and staying on task, and problems with impulse control.
In the last decade, the pace of ADD and ADHD diagnoses has risen dramatically. In the same period, fast-paced programming for children - from "The Wiggles" and "Rugrats" to modern-day "Sesame Street" - has begun to penetrate even households with babies. Several media organizations, including the Walt Disney Co. and Sesame Workshop, have launched major efforts to build and capture the baby-to-toddler audience for video and TV programming.
That concurrent blossoming of early TV exposure and a rise in attention problems has led many experts on early child development to surmise that heavy viewing - especially at an early age - may negatively affect the wiring of some kids' brains, leading to attention problems later. The study published last month didn't distinguish between TV shows aimed at young children and more general programming, but it did find that the incidence of attention problems rises as the level of television exposure increases and in cases where the onset of TV viewing is very early.
"Look, there's smoke here. We need to pay attention to what's happening out there in terms of kids' viewing," says Seattle pediatrician Donald Shifrin, who heads the pediatric academy's public information committee and helped draft its "no screen time for babies" recommendation.
Earlier this month, a trio of Washington lawmakers underscored their rising concern about the effects of television on children - and about the dearth of independent research to guide parents and physicians - by introducing legislation that would set aside $100 million a year for new studies.
"Children today are exposed to more media than ever before," says Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), who along with Sens. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) and Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.), drafted the bill. "Parents need to know what effects such exposure has on their children, particularly very young children," she adds.
This week, the Kaiser Family Foundation will be briefing Congress on what is known - and what is not - about children and time spent in front of computer, television and video screens.
The next several years could bring new findings, as the federal government lays plans to launch the most comprehensive survey of American children ever undertaken, following a vast cross section of kids and gauging their lifestyles and their health status from birth to adulthood. Around the country, researchers are meeting to devise questions that could use that survey to clarify the relationship between a child's "screen time" and indicators such as health, school readiness and social adjustment.
"This is a very exciting time," says Ellen Wartella, one of the nation's leading researchers on children and television and soon to be executive vice chancellor and provost of UC Riverside. "We're asking questions not just about media's effects but about children's development and the role of media in that development. That's a subtle but important difference.
Guilt and ambivalence
Television may bring households with children a dose of entertainment, the odd educational moment and a stretch of blessed peace to get dinner on the table. But with the publication of the new attention study, the cost for these benefits seemed to rise another notch, heaping new worries atop the guilt and ambivalence of parents with plugged-in kids.
First came the research linking televised violence and children's aggression. Then came the warnings that TV's constant barrage of advertising was turning our children into consumer automatons. In the last two years, we've been told that TV is making our children obese." ...
.
"But for all of our worry, have we turned off the TV?
Apparently not, according to a survey of more than 1,000 American families with young kids released by the Kaiser Family Foundation last October. Children younger than 6 are spending on average two hours a day in front of a screen, mostly watching TV or videos. Two out of three such children live in households where the television is on at least half of the day, whether anyone is watching or not, and 36% live in homes where the TV is on most or all of the time.
The Kaiser survey found that more than one in four American kids younger than 3 (and 43% of those between 4 and 6 years old) have a TV in their bedroom - meaning they are far more likely to watch TV unsupervised.
And the TV habit is starting early for many American babies, Kaiser found. In spite of the pediatric academy's recommendation, 43% of children younger than 2 watch TV every day, and about one in three American babies start watching TV before their first birthday.
"We know now that media is a huge part of the lives of kids at the earliest stages. Beyond that, we know very little," says Vicky Rideout, director of the Kaiser foundation's Program for the Study of Entertainment Media and Health.
But the existing research linking TV to attention problems points to trouble.
At a lab at the University of Massachusetts, psychologist Daniel Anderson has spent years watching 1-, 2- and 3-year-olds and their mothers play and interact from behind a one-way mirror. When a baby is classically engaged in exploration of a toy, his heart rate will fall, his little tongue may poke out and his eyes will be fixed upon the object of his scrutiny. He will hunch, his torso motionless, over the toy as his small fingers poke and prod. It may take several callings of his name to draw his attention from his investigations.
Babies whose play regularly looks like this are more likely to reach their developmental milestones on or ahead of schedule, and later will likely score higher on IQ tests.
But with "Jeopardy" on in the background, the same baby's heart rate may race, his eyes will likely dart around the room, and the attitudes of intent scrutiny are replaced with a restless, shifting motion. Compared with an hour playing in silence next to his mother, a toddler moves from one toy or activity to the next at roughly double the speed when the television is in the room, Anderson has found. And when he does appeal to mom for help, it will take more bleating to get her attention and he'll get a shorter interaction, Anderson says.
"The TV is perpetually distracting" to children, Anderson says. "These are very young children, and so the parts of their brains that have to do with attention are not nearly as effective as older children or adults at filtering out background stimulation.
"When the TV is background noise, their ability to sustain attention doesn't have an adequate chance to develop," Anderson says. That, he adds, may lead to problems of attention or other mental functioning as the child develops.
In Japan in 2001, another researcher looked inside older children's brains and drew a similar conclusion. Ryuta Kawashima of Tohoku University used brain-imaging techniques to compare the brain activity of children playing Nintendo games with that of children doing a mental mathematics exercise for a half-hour. The images showed that playing Nintendo games stimulated primarily the parts of players' brains that are involved in vision and movement. But subjects performing an exercise of mental arithmetic showed brain activity throughout the left and right hemispheres of the frontal lobe. In adults, these are the brain areas most involved in carrying out complex intellectual tasks, in learning and memory, and in judgment and impulse control.
*Gratification in an instant
When researchers chew over the meager findings on TV, kids and attention, they bump up quickly against two great unknowns: Does the age of the viewer matter, and will the content of the programming make a difference?
Like many researchers, Dr. Mark Mahone, a neuropsychologist and specialist in attention disorders, describes a child's first two to three years as a "window" during which the brain, embryonic at birth, is turned on, wired up, shaped and ultimately edited by the experiences of her surroundings and her bonds to people. A baby learns from play with people and objects that a parent may withhold a smile, waiting for something more, and that blocks may not stay stacked under some conditions.
But on television, changes come without any effort by the baby - often in rapidly evolving images that last two to three seconds. Exposed to hours and hours of TV during this critical time, the developing brain may come to expect, and even prefer, the immediate reinforcement of TV images and the novelty of quick changes over the plodding effort involved in hands-on experience, says Mahone, of Johns Hopkins University's Kennedy Krieger Institute.
This might make the brightest child lazy or inattentive, Mahone says. And heavy TV viewing in middle-childhood or even in the teen years, he adds, may also set up habits of mind that favor quick changes and instant gratification.
But a child's genetic inheritance is likely the decisive factor in determining whether "attention problems" rise to a diagnosis of ADD or ADHD, Mahone says. In cases where a child has a family history of attention problems, frequent and early TV viewing may nudge that child toward a diagnosable condition. Without that genetic propensity, a child might endure a heavy diet without negative effects, Mahone says.
"I think what we're talking about is perhaps exacerbating some preexisting predisposition.
"Through all the debate, the marketing of TV-for-babies continues. In 1997, the "Baby Einstein" line of videos, audio CDs and other media products were launched. Designed and marketed as brain boosters for babies and toddlers, the line was quickly snapped up by the Walt Disney Co., and a recent survey found that more than one in four households with a baby had at least one of its products. Baby Einstein's website touts parents' testimonials, including the assertion by a parent of a prematurely born infant that watching the Baby Einstein videos "helped increase JJ's attention span." The child is said to have begun watching when 2 months old.
Meanwhile, Sesame Workshop, the nonprofit organization that launched "Sesame Street" 35 years ago, is beginning to explore video products that it says could "help lay the foundation for language development and literacy in children from infancy through age 3."
Jennifer Kotler, the Workshop's assistant director of research, says these young children are watching "Sesame Street" already, and the organization is wrestling with ways to make it age-appropriate for those pint-sized viewers.
" It's a hard balance," Kotler acknowledges, to juggle the "no screen time" recommendation with the fact of younger viewers. And while Kotler lauds the recent attention study as "a good start for a dialogue," she says its failure to address the content of what young viewers watched limits its usefulness.
Kotler and many other researchers, including the University of Massachusetts' Anderson, believe that a limited amount of TV made for children - which keeps narratives simple and moves at a pace a small child can follow - can help build attention skills, empathy and school readiness. But others contend that the medium of television itself - a succession of bright, changing images, taken in passively - leads to problems for kids. It is a central debate that, so far, remains unresolved. "The medium is not the message," says Kotler. ADD specialist Mahone says the idea that television itself may harm some kids' brains "is theoretically sound." But he acknowledges, "there's not much data to back it up.
" Jane Healy, author of "Endangered Minds" (Touchstone Books, 1990) has been deeply critical of those producing children's programming, contending they have hooked a generation of kids on a technological crutch that makes them lazy, inattentive and unimaginative. Healy has assailed "Sesame Street" as contributing to a visual culture of jolting, jerky and eye-popping kids' television that contributes to attention problems.
"Its substitution of surface glitz for substance has started a generation of children in the seductive school of organized silliness, where their first lesson is that learning is something adults can be expected to make happen as quickly and pleasantly as possible," wrote Healy (no relation to this writer) in her widely read book.
Kotler counters that rigorous and ongoing research ensures that 3- to 5-year-old viewers understand and absorb the content of "Sesame Street" - and that those children learn lessons in empathy and caring and have higher rates of school readiness at kindergarten.
But it would take money and research devices not yet in hand to gauge the effects of "Sesame Street's" stories and pacing on younger children, who are not yet able to speak well, adds Kotler. Meanwhile, she notes, the pace and format of "Sesame Street" have been downshifted and more simply organized in the last two years to reflect research on children's attention spans.
In its promotions of Baby Einstein products, Disney notes that the videos, unlike programmed television, can be stopped and discussed by adults watching along with their intended viewers, and that the videos' "gentle motion," and "deliberate pacing" are suited to very young children. Neither the pediatric academy's recommendation nor the recent study take account of those distinctions, the promotions state.
*A call for limits
Even as researchers scramble to fill in the blanks on kids and TV, the Shifrin says parents should heed what he calls the "early storm clouds" suggesting a link between TV and attention problems. Just as when parents assess the risks of letting their child ride a bike without a helmet or serve them a tuna sandwich (the subject of recent warnings about mercury), they should probably err on the side of conservatism and adopt viewing limits, Shifrin says.
For children with a genetic predisposition - a family member with recognized attention problems - these findings offer an even stronger warning for parents, Shifrin adds. "What's the tipping point for youngsters? What tips them into that behavior? We don't know," he acknowledges. But when attention problems seem to run in the family and the TV is turned on early and often, "you've now taken your genetic inheritance and you've pushed it a bit.
May 24, 2004 LA Times
Losing focusYoung TV watchers may be at risk for later attention problems.
By Melissa Healy, Times Staff Writer
...But it was not until the publication last month of a study that followed about 2,600 kids from birth to age 7 that researchers were able to draw a firmer line between TV and rampant complaints - from teachers, parents and physicians - of attention problems among American kids.
The study showed that every average hour per day of television programming viewed by a child between the ages of 1 and 3 increased by 10% the probability that the child's parent would report attention problems at age 7. "Limiting young children's exposure to television as a medium during formative years of brain development may reduce children's subsequent risk of developing [attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder]," concluded the study's author, Dimitri A. Christakis of the University of Washington.
Experts on learning disabilities - even those who are deeply suspicious of TV - warned that many other factors, chief among them genetic inheritance, are at work in the twin syndromes known as attention deficit disorder (ADD), and attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Somewhere between 4% and 12% of American kids are believed to suffer from ADD or ADHD, and their behavior typically is marked by difficulty sustaining concentration, trouble organizing themselves and staying on task, and problems with impulse control.
In the last decade, the pace of ADD and ADHD diagnoses has risen dramatically. In the same period, fast-paced programming for children - from "The Wiggles" and "Rugrats" to modern-day "Sesame Street" - has begun to penetrate even households with babies. Several media organizations, including the Walt Disney Co. and Sesame Workshop, have launched major efforts to build and capture the baby-to-toddler audience for video and TV programming.
That concurrent blossoming of early TV exposure and a rise in attention problems has led many experts on early child development to surmise that heavy viewing - especially at an early age - may negatively affect the wiring of some kids' brains, leading to attention problems later. The study published last month didn't distinguish between TV shows aimed at young children and more general programming, but it did find that the incidence of attention problems rises as the level of television exposure increases and in cases where the onset of TV viewing is very early.
"Look, there's smoke here. We need to pay attention to what's happening out there in terms of kids' viewing," says Seattle pediatrician Donald Shifrin, who heads the pediatric academy's public information committee and helped draft its "no screen time for babies" recommendation.
Earlier this month, a trio of Washington lawmakers underscored their rising concern about the effects of television on children - and about the dearth of independent research to guide parents and physicians - by introducing legislation that would set aside $100 million a year for new studies.
"Children today are exposed to more media than ever before," says Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), who along with Sens. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) and Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.), drafted the bill. "Parents need to know what effects such exposure has on their children, particularly very young children," she adds.
This week, the Kaiser Family Foundation will be briefing Congress on what is known - and what is not - about children and time spent in front of computer, television and video screens.
The next several years could bring new findings, as the federal government lays plans to launch the most comprehensive survey of American children ever undertaken, following a vast cross section of kids and gauging their lifestyles and their health status from birth to adulthood. Around the country, researchers are meeting to devise questions that could use that survey to clarify the relationship between a child's "screen time" and indicators such as health, school readiness and social adjustment.
"This is a very exciting time," says Ellen Wartella, one of the nation's leading researchers on children and television and soon to be executive vice chancellor and provost of UC Riverside. "We're asking questions not just about media's effects but about children's development and the role of media in that development. That's a subtle but important difference.
Guilt and ambivalence
Television may bring households with children a dose of entertainment, the odd educational moment and a stretch of blessed peace to get dinner on the table. But with the publication of the new attention study, the cost for these benefits seemed to rise another notch, heaping new worries atop the guilt and ambivalence of parents with plugged-in kids.
First came the research linking televised violence and children's aggression. Then came the warnings that TV's constant barrage of advertising was turning our children into consumer automatons. In the last two years, we've been told that TV is making our children obese." ...
.
"But for all of our worry, have we turned off the TV?
Apparently not, according to a survey of more than 1,000 American families with young kids released by the Kaiser Family Foundation last October. Children younger than 6 are spending on average two hours a day in front of a screen, mostly watching TV or videos. Two out of three such children live in households where the television is on at least half of the day, whether anyone is watching or not, and 36% live in homes where the TV is on most or all of the time.
The Kaiser survey found that more than one in four American kids younger than 3 (and 43% of those between 4 and 6 years old) have a TV in their bedroom - meaning they are far more likely to watch TV unsupervised.
And the TV habit is starting early for many American babies, Kaiser found. In spite of the pediatric academy's recommendation, 43% of children younger than 2 watch TV every day, and about one in three American babies start watching TV before their first birthday.
"We know now that media is a huge part of the lives of kids at the earliest stages. Beyond that, we know very little," says Vicky Rideout, director of the Kaiser foundation's Program for the Study of Entertainment Media and Health.
But the existing research linking TV to attention problems points to trouble.
At a lab at the University of Massachusetts, psychologist Daniel Anderson has spent years watching 1-, 2- and 3-year-olds and their mothers play and interact from behind a one-way mirror. When a baby is classically engaged in exploration of a toy, his heart rate will fall, his little tongue may poke out and his eyes will be fixed upon the object of his scrutiny. He will hunch, his torso motionless, over the toy as his small fingers poke and prod. It may take several callings of his name to draw his attention from his investigations.
Babies whose play regularly looks like this are more likely to reach their developmental milestones on or ahead of schedule, and later will likely score higher on IQ tests.
But with "Jeopardy" on in the background, the same baby's heart rate may race, his eyes will likely dart around the room, and the attitudes of intent scrutiny are replaced with a restless, shifting motion. Compared with an hour playing in silence next to his mother, a toddler moves from one toy or activity to the next at roughly double the speed when the television is in the room, Anderson has found. And when he does appeal to mom for help, it will take more bleating to get her attention and he'll get a shorter interaction, Anderson says.
"The TV is perpetually distracting" to children, Anderson says. "These are very young children, and so the parts of their brains that have to do with attention are not nearly as effective as older children or adults at filtering out background stimulation.
"When the TV is background noise, their ability to sustain attention doesn't have an adequate chance to develop," Anderson says. That, he adds, may lead to problems of attention or other mental functioning as the child develops.
In Japan in 2001, another researcher looked inside older children's brains and drew a similar conclusion. Ryuta Kawashima of Tohoku University used brain-imaging techniques to compare the brain activity of children playing Nintendo games with that of children doing a mental mathematics exercise for a half-hour. The images showed that playing Nintendo games stimulated primarily the parts of players' brains that are involved in vision and movement. But subjects performing an exercise of mental arithmetic showed brain activity throughout the left and right hemispheres of the frontal lobe. In adults, these are the brain areas most involved in carrying out complex intellectual tasks, in learning and memory, and in judgment and impulse control.
*Gratification in an instant
When researchers chew over the meager findings on TV, kids and attention, they bump up quickly against two great unknowns: Does the age of the viewer matter, and will the content of the programming make a difference?
Like many researchers, Dr. Mark Mahone, a neuropsychologist and specialist in attention disorders, describes a child's first two to three years as a "window" during which the brain, embryonic at birth, is turned on, wired up, shaped and ultimately edited by the experiences of her surroundings and her bonds to people. A baby learns from play with people and objects that a parent may withhold a smile, waiting for something more, and that blocks may not stay stacked under some conditions.
But on television, changes come without any effort by the baby - often in rapidly evolving images that last two to three seconds. Exposed to hours and hours of TV during this critical time, the developing brain may come to expect, and even prefer, the immediate reinforcement of TV images and the novelty of quick changes over the plodding effort involved in hands-on experience, says Mahone, of Johns Hopkins University's Kennedy Krieger Institute.
This might make the brightest child lazy or inattentive, Mahone says. And heavy TV viewing in middle-childhood or even in the teen years, he adds, may also set up habits of mind that favor quick changes and instant gratification.
But a child's genetic inheritance is likely the decisive factor in determining whether "attention problems" rise to a diagnosis of ADD or ADHD, Mahone says. In cases where a child has a family history of attention problems, frequent and early TV viewing may nudge that child toward a diagnosable condition. Without that genetic propensity, a child might endure a heavy diet without negative effects, Mahone says.
"I think what we're talking about is perhaps exacerbating some preexisting predisposition.
"Through all the debate, the marketing of TV-for-babies continues. In 1997, the "Baby Einstein" line of videos, audio CDs and other media products were launched. Designed and marketed as brain boosters for babies and toddlers, the line was quickly snapped up by the Walt Disney Co., and a recent survey found that more than one in four households with a baby had at least one of its products. Baby Einstein's website touts parents' testimonials, including the assertion by a parent of a prematurely born infant that watching the Baby Einstein videos "helped increase JJ's attention span." The child is said to have begun watching when 2 months old.
Meanwhile, Sesame Workshop, the nonprofit organization that launched "Sesame Street" 35 years ago, is beginning to explore video products that it says could "help lay the foundation for language development and literacy in children from infancy through age 3."
Jennifer Kotler, the Workshop's assistant director of research, says these young children are watching "Sesame Street" already, and the organization is wrestling with ways to make it age-appropriate for those pint-sized viewers.
" It's a hard balance," Kotler acknowledges, to juggle the "no screen time" recommendation with the fact of younger viewers. And while Kotler lauds the recent attention study as "a good start for a dialogue," she says its failure to address the content of what young viewers watched limits its usefulness.
Kotler and many other researchers, including the University of Massachusetts' Anderson, believe that a limited amount of TV made for children - which keeps narratives simple and moves at a pace a small child can follow - can help build attention skills, empathy and school readiness. But others contend that the medium of television itself - a succession of bright, changing images, taken in passively - leads to problems for kids. It is a central debate that, so far, remains unresolved. "The medium is not the message," says Kotler. ADD specialist Mahone says the idea that television itself may harm some kids' brains "is theoretically sound." But he acknowledges, "there's not much data to back it up.
" Jane Healy, author of "Endangered Minds" (Touchstone Books, 1990) has been deeply critical of those producing children's programming, contending they have hooked a generation of kids on a technological crutch that makes them lazy, inattentive and unimaginative. Healy has assailed "Sesame Street" as contributing to a visual culture of jolting, jerky and eye-popping kids' television that contributes to attention problems.
"Its substitution of surface glitz for substance has started a generation of children in the seductive school of organized silliness, where their first lesson is that learning is something adults can be expected to make happen as quickly and pleasantly as possible," wrote Healy (no relation to this writer) in her widely read book.
Kotler counters that rigorous and ongoing research ensures that 3- to 5-year-old viewers understand and absorb the content of "Sesame Street" - and that those children learn lessons in empathy and caring and have higher rates of school readiness at kindergarten.
But it would take money and research devices not yet in hand to gauge the effects of "Sesame Street's" stories and pacing on younger children, who are not yet able to speak well, adds Kotler. Meanwhile, she notes, the pace and format of "Sesame Street" have been downshifted and more simply organized in the last two years to reflect research on children's attention spans.
In its promotions of Baby Einstein products, Disney notes that the videos, unlike programmed television, can be stopped and discussed by adults watching along with their intended viewers, and that the videos' "gentle motion," and "deliberate pacing" are suited to very young children. Neither the pediatric academy's recommendation nor the recent study take account of those distinctions, the promotions state.
*A call for limits
Even as researchers scramble to fill in the blanks on kids and TV, the Shifrin says parents should heed what he calls the "early storm clouds" suggesting a link between TV and attention problems. Just as when parents assess the risks of letting their child ride a bike without a helmet or serve them a tuna sandwich (the subject of recent warnings about mercury), they should probably err on the side of conservatism and adopt viewing limits, Shifrin says.
For children with a genetic predisposition - a family member with recognized attention problems - these findings offer an even stronger warning for parents, Shifrin adds. "What's the tipping point for youngsters? What tips them into that behavior? We don't know," he acknowledges. But when attention problems seem to run in the family and the TV is turned on early and often, "you've now taken your genetic inheritance and you've pushed it a bit.
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
making perfect little consumer...
I remember one of my friend telling me how happy she was to have cut down TV viewing because her children were not so demanding any more...
Before, when watching TV everyday for eventually few hours, they had so many needs and never seem to be satisfied, after, with very little TV viewing, their minds were to busy playing to have time to think about consuming :-)
Here is an interesting abstract:
Effects of Reducing Television Viewing on Children's Requests for Toys: A Randomized Controlled Trial
an abstract from the Journal of Developmental Behavioral Pediatrics 22:179-184, 2001.
THOMAS N. ROBINSON, M.D., M.P.H. Division of General Pediatrics, Department of Pediatrics, and Center for Research in Disease Prevention, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine
MELISSA NICHOLS SAPHIR, Ph.D. Center for Research in Disease Prevention, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine
HELENA C. KRAEMER, Ph.D. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine
ANN VARADY, M.S. K. FARISH HAYDEL Center for Research in Disease Prevention, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California
Abstract. Previous attempts to reduce the effects of television advertising on children's purchase requests have had little success. Therefore, we tested the effects of a classroom intervention to reduce television, videotape, and video game use on children's toy purchase requests, in a school-based randomized controlled trial. Third- and fourth-grade children (mean age, 8.9 years) in two sociodemographically and scholastically matched public elementary schools were eligible to participate. Children in one randomly selected elementary school received an 18-lesson, 6-month classroom curriculum to reduce television, videotape, and video game use. In both schools, in September (before intervention) and April (after intervention) of a single school year, children and parents reported children's prior week's purchase requests for toys seen on television. After intervention, children in the intervention school were significantly less likely to report toy purchase requests than children in the control school, with adjusting for baseline purchase requests, gender, and age (odds ratio, 0.29; 95% confidence interval, 0.12-0.69). Among intervention school children, reductions in self-reported purchase requests were also associated with reductions in television viewing. There was no significant difference between schools in parent reports of children's requests for toy purchases. These findings suggest that reducing television viewing is a promising approach to reducing the influences of advertising on children's behavior. J Dev Behav Pediatr 22:179-184, 2001. Index terms: television, media, advertising, consumerism, children, toys.
Before, when watching TV everyday for eventually few hours, they had so many needs and never seem to be satisfied, after, with very little TV viewing, their minds were to busy playing to have time to think about consuming :-)
Here is an interesting abstract:
Effects of Reducing Television Viewing on Children's Requests for Toys: A Randomized Controlled Trial
an abstract from the Journal of Developmental Behavioral Pediatrics 22:179-184, 2001.
THOMAS N. ROBINSON, M.D., M.P.H. Division of General Pediatrics, Department of Pediatrics, and Center for Research in Disease Prevention, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine
MELISSA NICHOLS SAPHIR, Ph.D. Center for Research in Disease Prevention, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine
HELENA C. KRAEMER, Ph.D. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine
ANN VARADY, M.S. K. FARISH HAYDEL Center for Research in Disease Prevention, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California
Abstract. Previous attempts to reduce the effects of television advertising on children's purchase requests have had little success. Therefore, we tested the effects of a classroom intervention to reduce television, videotape, and video game use on children's toy purchase requests, in a school-based randomized controlled trial. Third- and fourth-grade children (mean age, 8.9 years) in two sociodemographically and scholastically matched public elementary schools were eligible to participate. Children in one randomly selected elementary school received an 18-lesson, 6-month classroom curriculum to reduce television, videotape, and video game use. In both schools, in September (before intervention) and April (after intervention) of a single school year, children and parents reported children's prior week's purchase requests for toys seen on television. After intervention, children in the intervention school were significantly less likely to report toy purchase requests than children in the control school, with adjusting for baseline purchase requests, gender, and age (odds ratio, 0.29; 95% confidence interval, 0.12-0.69). Among intervention school children, reductions in self-reported purchase requests were also associated with reductions in television viewing. There was no significant difference between schools in parent reports of children's requests for toy purchases. These findings suggest that reducing television viewing is a promising approach to reducing the influences of advertising on children's behavior. J Dev Behav Pediatr 22:179-184, 2001. Index terms: television, media, advertising, consumerism, children, toys.
Monday, October 30, 2006
What to do beside TV? any ideas?
Go to the Library or a Local Bookstore
Start a garden
Write a Letter
Take a Walk, a Swim, or a Bicycle Ride
Ice-skate, rollerskate or Roller-Blade
Start a Journal or Diary
Make a Scrapbook or Photo Album
Cook a Meal with Family or Friends
Make paper bag costumes and have a parade
Play hopscotch, hide & seek, or freeze-tag
Learn about the native trees and flowers in your area
Play a Game
Watch the clouds
Look at the Stars
Attend Local Plays and Sports Events
Listen to Music
Dance
Jump
Sing
Sign Up for a Class
Make a friendship bracelet
Visit the zoo
Go to a museum
Climb a tree
Print activities from the web
Write a book with your child
Read
Paint
Finger paint
Play-doh
Bunch of craft stuff (construction paper, glue sticks, glitter, all sorts of washable paint and markers)...
Treasure Hunts? Give the child a list of thing she could find?
Make an obstacle course of couch cushions and stray objects in theliving room.
Play charades.
Give kids a screwdriver and let them take apart broken phones and other gadgets.
Challenge the kids to fill a laundry basket with something representing every letter of the alphabet. The catch? It has to be out of place already.
Afterwards, put it all away and fill it with 10 blue things and so on.
Teach them a new card game.
Paint rocks outside.
Turn a large box into a post office, rocket ship, puppet theater,boat....
Quick fun for one year olds...
Go bowling with empty plastic bottles and an orange.
Make tunnels and houses from empty cardboard boxes.
Put an assortment of odd little things in a box (tweezers, a smalltoy, a sparkly rock, a magnifying glass...) and let her explore the mone by one with you.
Paint in the high chair with baby cereal (tint with crushed blueberries, turmeric, cocoa or beet juice for colors).
Find some dirt to dig in.
Fill a large tupperware container with uncooked rice and hide smalltoys in it, then let him use spoons, measuring cups, sticks andfingers to explore it (either do this outside, put a tablecloth on the floor under it, or deal with rice for years though!).
Spread a thin layer of pudding on a cookie sheet and let her draw in it with her fingers...
Check do more, watch less: http://www.dhs.ca.gov/ps/cdic/copi/documents/COPI_TV_Tool.pdf
Start a garden
Write a Letter
Take a Walk, a Swim, or a Bicycle Ride
Ice-skate, rollerskate or Roller-Blade
Start a Journal or Diary
Make a Scrapbook or Photo Album
Cook a Meal with Family or Friends
Make paper bag costumes and have a parade
Play hopscotch, hide & seek, or freeze-tag
Learn about the native trees and flowers in your area
Play a Game
Watch the clouds
Look at the Stars
Attend Local Plays and Sports Events
Listen to Music
Dance
Jump
Sing
Sign Up for a Class
Make a friendship bracelet
Visit the zoo
Go to a museum
Climb a tree
Print activities from the web
Write a book with your child
Read
Paint
Finger paint
Play-doh
Bunch of craft stuff (construction paper, glue sticks, glitter, all sorts of washable paint and markers)...
Treasure Hunts? Give the child a list of thing she could find?
Make an obstacle course of couch cushions and stray objects in theliving room.
Play charades.
Give kids a screwdriver and let them take apart broken phones and other gadgets.
Challenge the kids to fill a laundry basket with something representing every letter of the alphabet. The catch? It has to be out of place already.
Afterwards, put it all away and fill it with 10 blue things and so on.
Teach them a new card game.
Paint rocks outside.
Turn a large box into a post office, rocket ship, puppet theater,boat....
Quick fun for one year olds...
Go bowling with empty plastic bottles and an orange.
Make tunnels and houses from empty cardboard boxes.
Put an assortment of odd little things in a box (tweezers, a smalltoy, a sparkly rock, a magnifying glass...) and let her explore the mone by one with you.
Paint in the high chair with baby cereal (tint with crushed blueberries, turmeric, cocoa or beet juice for colors).
Find some dirt to dig in.
Fill a large tupperware container with uncooked rice and hide smalltoys in it, then let him use spoons, measuring cups, sticks andfingers to explore it (either do this outside, put a tablecloth on the floor under it, or deal with rice for years though!).
Spread a thin layer of pudding on a cookie sheet and let her draw in it with her fingers...
Check do more, watch less: http://www.dhs.ca.gov/ps/cdic/copi/documents/COPI_TV_Tool.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
