Group items tagged

When you separate the different types of screen out, the effects start to vary.

Passively watching TV is not the same as learning to read on a touchscreen, which is not the same as killing monsters on a console

First of all, lumping all screens into one category is not helpful. "Screen time is a really enticing measure because it's simple – it's usually described as the number of hours a day using screen-based technology. But it's completely meaningless,"

"Children will learn from what they watch, whether that means learning letters and numbers, slapstick humour or aggressive behaviour,

But they found no effects at all for those who played computer games.

"The best research suggests that the content children view is the best predictor of cognitive effects,"

The study found that all the children enjoy reading more when they look at stories using books and a touchscreen compared to just books.

But they found no effects at all for those who played computer games

rise in BMI

hard to tease apart whether screen time actually causes the effects or whether they are linked in some other way

"It is impossible to determine with certainty that TV is causing obesity, and it is likely that other factors are involved in the complex problem of childhood obesity,

Her own studies have shown that children who struggle to learn using books often made more progress with iPads.

research in schools also found that iPads made children more cooperative and helped quieter kids to speak up

children receive immediate feedback

children who watch age-appropriate, educational TV programmes often do better on tests of school readiness.

What is becoming clear is that it's not the technologies themselves we should be worried out but how they are used and how people interact with them

A lot of it is common sense. Don't unthinkingly hand over your device. There are educational apps whose benefits are backed up by research, says Flewitt.

Five hours sitting in front of the TV is not the same as 5 hours of some TV, a couple of hours playing on Dance Dance Revolution or some other kind of active game, followed by a Skype session with a grandparent.

Shirky almost completely ignores pedagogy in this article. While this paragraph addresses learning and course structure, he doesn’t address or attempt to justify the learning modes that banning laptops is meant to protect. The assumption of his argument is that the classroom is a place where mostly lectures (and some discussions) happen. I do not doubt that portable electronics provide unique challenges to lecturing; but is this narrow definition of the classroom — a place where an instructor delivers knowledge to students who must pay attention — one we should be defending from these increasingly ubiquitous technologies?

Yet, what goes unremarked on in the study is how abysmally all of the students did on the comprehension tests.

Students didn’t start being distracted in class with the introduction of laptops, so instructors are better off addressing the root problem: making their courses engaging and interesting.

why must we ask the 21st century to wait outside our classes? Is it just to protect the lecture? We know what a classroom designed around lectures, notes, and quizzes can do, and it is not impressive.

Perhaps by embracing the new forms and structures of communication enabled by laptops and other portable electronics we might discover new classroom practices that enable new and better learning outcomes.

what is the value of pedagogies like lecturing? What is the value of attention-structuring activities like note-taking?

I’m not for banning lectures, either. What I am for is pedagogies that are nimble and responsive to a range of needs and outcomes for both instructor and student. The lecture has its place. Asking students to close their laptops has its place. But, failing to explore new possibilities for education prompted by emerging technologies does not serve the interests of either group.