21–30 of 136 posts
Studies like these are pointless. Parents that give young kids touchscreens tend to not spend quality time with their kids to begin with.
One interesting thing I noticed is my kids who have grown up with touchscreens think that everything is a touchscreen. One of them even tried to swipe one of those adverts that's made of a big flatscreen. What confuses them is that some flatscreens aren't touchscreens, eg my macbook, while most of the smaller screens like phones and tablets are. Overall I'd say it's pretty hard to stay conservative about exposing the…
eh I'm in my 30s and am angry at car dashboards that clearly have GUI buttons on them but can only be used by the corresponding physical button on the side, or in some random other place nearby. Be nice if they did both if use while driving and not looking at that interface is the concern.
I want to sink all of those cars. Like, in the ocean.
It just goes to show that these recommendations are not really based on science. It’s more like they are based on guesses by reasonable people when the science isn’t really that confident one way or the other. My personal suspicion is that some forms of screen time, like video calls with family or educational apps, are good for kids. And some forms, like watching TV, are bad for them.
For this little gain, at what cost to the future growth of the kid? Attention span? Ability to focus on anything other than small screens? Social ability? This research should really address the pro/con for the kid in the long run rather than just benefit of finding target using their fingers.
The opposite can argued too. That children who don't use tablets have shorter attention spans and worst social skills. The "natural is better" argument is not research based. Society has long preached that things like reading books is great for kids but it's entirely unnatural just like tablets. Generally research in this area has been extremely biased against electronics. You also have to control for the type of act…
Wasn't always the case, Plato felt it would dull your memory.
"They will cease to exercise memory because they rely on that which is written, calling things to remembrance no longer from within themselves, but by means of external marks."
So, per this page: "The study followed them over the next 2.5 years, bringing them into the lab at 18 months and 3.5 years. At the 18-month and 3.5-year visits, toddlers took part in a computer task in which they were trained to search for a red apple amongst a varying number of either blue apples (easy search), or blue apples and red apple slices (difficult search). An eye tracker monitored their gaze and visually r…
The key issue often is the parents' role and guidance. Let your kid aimlessly click through YouTube? Or are you fostering their skills and challenge and motivate them to learn something new?
So, per this page: "The study followed them over the next 2.5 years, bringing them into the lab at 18 months and 3.5 years. At the 18-month and 3.5-year visits, toddlers took part in a computer task in which they were trained to search for a red apple amongst a varying number of either blue apples (easy search), or blue apples and red apple slices (difficult search). An eye tracker monitored their gaze and visually r…
I haven’t read the paper. But if the researchers were bringing in children regularly for testing involving eye tracking equipment, why not also test their ability to manipulate physical objects, recognize faces, and track faces? That all seems like low hanging fruit.
Research seems poorly directed, like lots of ad hoc studies without cooperation and planning for how it will be used for the sector overall.
Not a research scientist; probably a very naive view. Maybe there's more higher level cooperation/symbiosis/planning/whatever than I perceive?
> The study followed them over the next 2.5 years, bringing them into the lab at 18 months and 3.5 years. At the 18-month and 3.5-year visits, toddlers took part in a computer task in which they were trained to search for a red apple amongst a varying number of either blue apples (easy search), or blue apples and red apple slices (difficult search). An eye tracker monitored their gaze and visually rewarded the child…
'Dr Ana Maria Portugal, main researcher on the project points out “We are currently unable to conclude that the touchscreen use caused the differences in attention as it may also be that children who are generally more attracted to bright, colourful features seek out touchscreen devices more than those who are not.”'
This is an important confounding factor. My opinion is that toddlers often spend time with media that are brighter and more colorful than the surrounding environment, e.g. animated videos for children or educational apps for young children. A better study would take that into account.
So, per this page: "The study followed them over the next 2.5 years, bringing them into the lab at 18 months and 3.5 years. At the 18-month and 3.5-year visits, toddlers took part in a computer task in which they were trained to search for a red apple amongst a varying number of either blue apples (easy search), or blue apples and red apple slices (difficult search). An eye tracker monitored their gaze and visually r…
I agree that this study doesn't measure anything useful, but in my circles, I have heard of and seen children younger than 2 years old learn to read by playing touchscreen games and children younger than 3 learn the names of states, capitals, and other trivia from playing touchscreen games. Achieving that is possible without touchscreens, but it would require an incredible amount of work from the caretaker.
The narrative around screen time seems to have been totally overthrown by the coronavirus. A year ago the health authorities were recommending limiting childrens’ screen time. Now at a public school in California our children have mandatory three hours of screen time per day. It just goes to show that these recommendations are not really based on science. It’s more like they are based on guesses by reasonable people…