an article on a study about TV and learning
Sandra Dodd
It's actually, I think about TV and grades, not learning, but still...
http://www.montrealgazette.com/life/Parenting%20watching%20affects%20children%20learning/2951969/story.html#ixzz0mGAywykn
Still they managed to turn it all screwy in the article. (Maybe the
report didn't say this, maybe that end comment was by one of their
balancing experts...)
-------------------------------
Media literacy advocate Shari Graydon says the study confirms what
conscientious critics have been saying for years.
"Parents who actively engage with their children's cognitive
development have a much stronger impact on developmental outcomes than
the amount of screen time a child has,'' says Graydon, a director at
Media Action in Ottawa. "At the same time, the displacement factor
remains an issue for anyone concerned about the broader development of
a child.''
This sentiment is shared by Dr. Diane Sacks, a pediatrician for more
than 30 years.
"The study itself looks well-done, and it does (establish) that kids
can watch television and still have good reading and math skills,''
says Sacks, past president of the Canadian Paediatric Society. "But
the real issue is what kids aren't doing when they're watching TV. Who
cares if my kid is the best reader or mathematician on the block if
he's lonely, asocial and obese?''
Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/life/Parenting watching
affects children learning/2951969/story.html#ixzz0mGwDLttB
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
http://www.montrealgazette.com/life/Parenting%20watching%20affects%20children%20learning/2951969/story.html#ixzz0mGAywykn
Still they managed to turn it all screwy in the article. (Maybe the
report didn't say this, maybe that end comment was by one of their
balancing experts...)
-------------------------------
Media literacy advocate Shari Graydon says the study confirms what
conscientious critics have been saying for years.
"Parents who actively engage with their children's cognitive
development have a much stronger impact on developmental outcomes than
the amount of screen time a child has,'' says Graydon, a director at
Media Action in Ottawa. "At the same time, the displacement factor
remains an issue for anyone concerned about the broader development of
a child.''
This sentiment is shared by Dr. Diane Sacks, a pediatrician for more
than 30 years.
"The study itself looks well-done, and it does (establish) that kids
can watch television and still have good reading and math skills,''
says Sacks, past president of the Canadian Paediatric Society. "But
the real issue is what kids aren't doing when they're watching TV. Who
cares if my kid is the best reader or mathematician on the block if
he's lonely, asocial and obese?''
Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/life/Parenting watching
affects children learning/2951969/story.html#ixzz0mGwDLttB
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
1000 Sunny
Hi Sandra and others,
have you watched the google-Statistics about Homeschooling and Unschooling?
Unschooling really peaked up to the height of Homeschooling:
http://google.com/trends?q=Unschooling,+Homeschooling
So beware. There will probably increased media attention on all the
blogs and lists and so on for a while.
Sincerely
Richard
PS: Hello, I'm new on the list and only accidentally this week where a
lot of others came.
I'm an Unschooler from Germany and the only thing restrictions on
Homeschooling does is, that it leads to emigration. We will leave
Germany in a few months. Yipppieeh! Freedom here we come!
have you watched the google-Statistics about Homeschooling and Unschooling?
Unschooling really peaked up to the height of Homeschooling:
http://google.com/trends?q=Unschooling,+Homeschooling
So beware. There will probably increased media attention on all the
blogs and lists and so on for a while.
Sincerely
Richard
PS: Hello, I'm new on the list and only accidentally this week where a
lot of others came.
I'm an Unschooler from Germany and the only thing restrictions on
Homeschooling does is, that it leads to emigration. We will leave
Germany in a few months. Yipppieeh! Freedom here we come!
k
Wow what an assumption: "lonely, asocial and obese." First of all, I have a
problem with the word obese anyway. Many body types carry lots of weight
without being unhealthy in the least. As skinny as I was years ago, I
carried a lot of weight for my height, but didn't look it. I still do.
That's body type at work for sure.
The hours I have spent online should have done me in by now to go by that
assessment. I remember as a kid, I spent most hours with my nose in a book.
It wasn't conversation but it was communication of ideas nonetheless. (I see
the same thing with Karl and tv, video games, and the internet.)
Was reading books asocial? Maybe. I wasn't lonely when I was reading (to the
contrary; books were my favorite companions) and I was a skinny little
beanpole. And on top of that I watched a 4 or so hours of tv everyday as
well. And I went to school and sat at a desk all day. AND I hated PE. And I
avoided any hint of sports because I thought the social aspect of those
activities was abhorrent really, probably because it didn't fit who I was as
a kid. I liked lots of activities and still enjoy them today but I've never
been a high energy type.
The focus of this study is very clear. The ending comments about obesity
seem to be rather off-topic. :/
~Katherine
problem with the word obese anyway. Many body types carry lots of weight
without being unhealthy in the least. As skinny as I was years ago, I
carried a lot of weight for my height, but didn't look it. I still do.
That's body type at work for sure.
The hours I have spent online should have done me in by now to go by that
assessment. I remember as a kid, I spent most hours with my nose in a book.
It wasn't conversation but it was communication of ideas nonetheless. (I see
the same thing with Karl and tv, video games, and the internet.)
Was reading books asocial? Maybe. I wasn't lonely when I was reading (to the
contrary; books were my favorite companions) and I was a skinny little
beanpole. And on top of that I watched a 4 or so hours of tv everyday as
well. And I went to school and sat at a desk all day. AND I hated PE. And I
avoided any hint of sports because I thought the social aspect of those
activities was abhorrent really, probably because it didn't fit who I was as
a kid. I liked lots of activities and still enjoy them today but I've never
been a high energy type.
The focus of this study is very clear. The ending comments about obesity
seem to be rather off-topic. :/
~Katherine
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 12:38 AM, Sandra Dodd <Sandra@...> wrote:
> It's actually, I think about TV and grades, not learning, but still...
>
> http://www.montrealgazette.com/life/Parenting%20watching%20affects%20children%20learning/2951969/story.html#ixzz0mGAywykn
>
>
> Still they managed to turn it all screwy in the article. (Maybe the
> report didn't say this, maybe that end comment was by one of their
> balancing experts...)
> -------------------------------
> Media literacy advocate Shari Graydon says the study confirms what
> conscientious critics have been saying for years.
>
> "Parents who actively engage with their children's cognitive
> development have a much stronger impact on developmental outcomes than
> the amount of screen time a child has,'' says Graydon, a director at
> Media Action in Ottawa. "At the same time, the displacement factor
> remains an issue for anyone concerned about the broader development of
> a child.''
>
> This sentiment is shared by Dr. Diane Sacks, a pediatrician for more
> than 30 years.
>
> "The study itself looks well-done, and it does (establish) that kids
> can watch television and still have good reading and math skills,''
> says Sacks, past president of the Canadian Paediatric Society. "But
> the real issue is what kids aren't doing when they're watching TV. Who
> cares if my kid is the best reader or mathematician on the block if
> he's lonely, asocial and obese?''
>
>
>
> Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/life/Parenting watching
> affects children learning/2951969/story.html#ixzz0mGwDLttB
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
-=-Was reading books asocial? Maybe. I wasn't lonely when I was
reading (to the
contrary; books were my favorite companions) and I was a skinny little
beanpole. And on top of that I watched a 4 or so hours of tv everyday as
well. And I went to school and sat at a desk all day. AND I hated PE.
And I
avoided any hint of sports because I thought the social aspect of those
activities was abhorrent really, probably because it didn't fit who I
was as
a kid. I liked lots of activities and still enjoy them today but I've
never
been a high energy type.-=-
All that was true of me except the energy. I played a LOT at school,
running around, acting things out, putting a cardboard box over my
head (with my friend Martha) and pretending to be a radio, walking
around and saying "Turn on the radio!" and then we would sing a song.
At home we played on the swing set, dug deep holes, climbed trees,
rode bikes, jumped rope with two people turning and all kinds of long,
elaborate jumprope games, we played running games that involved
running around spirals drawn on the ground to escape "a witch," and
hopscotch, but I also read as much as I could find to read, and that
was "sedentary." I watched comedy re-runs or PBS every afternoon. I
watched TV most of Saturday (cartoons, then old movies--Tarzan, or
Shirley Temple or Frankenstein/Mummy/Creature...)
I went to church where I sat for two hours Sunday morning, two hours
Sunday evening and an hour on Wednesday, with much less intellectual
stimulation than watching TV. I figured out what all the appendices
in the back of the hymnal were by just reading them and following page
numbers until I understood the "metric index of tunes." I spent time
reading the whole chapter the sermon was from to see how out of
context it was *this* time.
Sitting isn't the crime. Doing something the parents didn't design
and approve is the crime with television. It's the possibility of
knowing more than the parents.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
reading (to the
contrary; books were my favorite companions) and I was a skinny little
beanpole. And on top of that I watched a 4 or so hours of tv everyday as
well. And I went to school and sat at a desk all day. AND I hated PE.
And I
avoided any hint of sports because I thought the social aspect of those
activities was abhorrent really, probably because it didn't fit who I
was as
a kid. I liked lots of activities and still enjoy them today but I've
never
been a high energy type.-=-
All that was true of me except the energy. I played a LOT at school,
running around, acting things out, putting a cardboard box over my
head (with my friend Martha) and pretending to be a radio, walking
around and saying "Turn on the radio!" and then we would sing a song.
At home we played on the swing set, dug deep holes, climbed trees,
rode bikes, jumped rope with two people turning and all kinds of long,
elaborate jumprope games, we played running games that involved
running around spirals drawn on the ground to escape "a witch," and
hopscotch, but I also read as much as I could find to read, and that
was "sedentary." I watched comedy re-runs or PBS every afternoon. I
watched TV most of Saturday (cartoons, then old movies--Tarzan, or
Shirley Temple or Frankenstein/Mummy/Creature...)
I went to church where I sat for two hours Sunday morning, two hours
Sunday evening and an hour on Wednesday, with much less intellectual
stimulation than watching TV. I figured out what all the appendices
in the back of the hymnal were by just reading them and following page
numbers until I understood the "metric index of tunes." I spent time
reading the whole chapter the sermon was from to see how out of
context it was *this* time.
Sitting isn't the crime. Doing something the parents didn't design
and approve is the crime with television. It's the possibility of
knowing more than the parents.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Jenny Cyphers
***have you watched the google-Statistics about Homeschooling and Unschooling?
Unschooling really peaked up to the height of Homeschooling:
http://google. com/trends? q=Unschooling, +Homeschooling***
That's really cool! I never thought to look at google search statistics on that! I love that my own city pops up first! Way to go Pacific NW folks! There really are a LOT of unschoolers around these parts... Perhaps when you move from Germany, you could come on this way... One of my neighbors is German even!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Unschooling really peaked up to the height of Homeschooling:
http://google. com/trends? q=Unschooling, +Homeschooling***
That's really cool! I never thought to look at google search statistics on that! I love that my own city pops up first! Way to go Pacific NW folks! There really are a LOT of unschoolers around these parts... Perhaps when you move from Germany, you could come on this way... One of my neighbors is German even!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]