Educational TV Not Educational

[Ceres]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080212.wtvkids0212/BNStory/Entertainment/home

According to Dr. Sigman, who bases his assertions on studies published by researchers from leading U.S. universities as well as his own worldwide research, science now suggests that the quality of television children watch is of little consequence.

He points to Tellytubbies, the globally successful toddler TV series hailed for its innovation and educational value, but which was also the subject of several warning studies including one by two Harvard academics titled "Say No To Tellytubbies."

"Medical evidence is growing that for young children, being exposed to TV, computers and DVDs, – irrespective of the quality of the program – has an impact on their health and development," he said.

"There is a definite inverse relationship between time spent watching any kind of television or screen when you are young and your ability to read and concentrate when you are older."

Studies of brain activity have shown that a child doing simple mental arithmetic with coloured counters or beans has greater blood flow to the brain than one engaged what may look like a far more complex computer game, he said.

And it may be precisely the complexity – the speed of edits, the colours and sounds and speeds children's media – that is having a detrimental effect on their brain development.

"It may well be that your child learns from the TV that a certain country is in Africa, but that may well also come at the cost of doing something to their attention span," he said.

"Whereas if a parent is talking their children about geography or nature, they can learn without that risk and will physically exercise their brains in the process."

[Sequoia]

That doesn't surprise me. If you use the TV as a babysitter, your kid is going to have mush for brains. It's pretty straightforward.

Doing PHYSICAL things, such as physically counting items, or physically deciphering shapes and colours, is a FAR more stimulating activity. Not to mention that it develops hand-eye coordination.

That's not to say that an occasional episode of Teletubbies or watching The Little Mermaid at Grandma's house is going to destroy your child's chance of academia. But plopping your kid in front of a Little Einstein video isn't going to increase their intelligence.

The only exception to this sort of thing I can imagine are the foreign language videos for slightly older children. That kind of thing you can actually LEARN from.

[Ceres]

The only exception to this sort of thing I can imagine are the foreign language videos for slightly older children. That kind of thing you can actually LEARN from.

If I am not mistaken, what the researcher is trying to say is that it absolutely doesnt matter how good the content is - it is STILL passive and therefore fails to stimulate the brain. Even video games dull the brain in this way, he contends, so that the act of counting coloured beans causes more blood flow to the brain than a complex video game.

I dont know.....I use screen time for entertainment and for teaching at times. My kids and I watch documentries together and learn things from them, though I must say they do retain more information when I read aloud, even though they are only hearing the information and occasionally looking at stills to illustrate points.

My daughter is teaching herself french with Rosetta Stone and seems to be learning from it as well, though now I wonder how much of that is going to stay with her. Thats IT, there is no help for it, we will just have to vacation in the south of France so she can learn french...the warmth will also help stimulate blood flow to the brain....yeah.....thats it! :weirdsmil

[Sequoia]

Video games and educational tapes (with ACTUAL content, like languages) are only passive if YOU are passive whilst viewing them. If you're actively participating (IE repeating the words aloud, or discussing the contents), you're going to retain more. So I don't think his study is the end-all be-all on the subject, it just helps to remind you that TV is not an adequate babysitter.

[IsauraStrider]

I heard about that along time ago. I don't plan on letting my kid watch tv after she's born for a very very very long time. I'm the parent not the tv.

[SphinYote]

I could tell anyone that from working in the children's dpartment in the Library.

Parents who came to check out books for their children--the children were articulate and able to talk in complete sentences, even as early as age three.

Parents who came in to check out ONLY videos--the children, even at age 6 or 7 did not speak clearly, mumbled, mispronounced, and a few of them still inserted random amounts of babytalk that the moms could comprehend, but I certainly couldn't.

The more videos, the less ability the kids had to communicate, and the less ability they had to actually follow directions not to touch something--no matter who gave it. They just acted unaware that they had even been spoken to...vacant. That much is clear in just the three minutes of interaction it took to check things out for people.

The ones who checked out books, there were occasional troubles in listening, too, with one crucial difference--the child would be actively exploring and examining an object, intrigued by something and talking about it and excited. The video watchers--quiet, even a bit sullen. Of course, so were the parents--and for the video watchers, the parents wanted to be in and out as soon as possible, threw videos in their kids hands, and on the occasions when the child did show an interest in a book, the parent would outright tell the child not to waste time. (Me during those moments wanting to slap the parent...).

Two completely different modes of interaction. Not sure if it was entirely the difference between video and reading, given the personality differences in the parents as well (and I am contrasting the most exteme cases--there was certainly a spectrum), but it is something to consider.

I do think that interaction is the key. Engage, ask questions. Talk, write. The TV babysitter isn't a terrible thing on occasion, but it doesn't DO anything, and there are so many better activities the child could be engaged in.

Yote

[Ravenna Angellin]

TV is entertainment. That's the bottom line in my household. Sure, my kids have tons of DVDs that family and friends have given them over the years, but I control how much TV they get to watch.

Aiden likes to watch cartoons. That's fine. But in our house there are rules that need to be followed first. After school, it's snack time. Followed by homework time. Followed by some playtime and dinner. THEN, if there's time, he's allowed to watch one hour of TV before it's time to get ready for bed, choose a story and lights out.

Finn gets his hour of TV during the day. Back when the Disney channel still had the Wiggles on at a decent hour (11am) that was one show we watched, then we'd watch LazyTown on NickJr, now we just choose one of his DVDs (Chipmunk Adventure, a Wiggles movie, the Muppet show, or even Bear in the Big Blue House) and he gets to watch one of them for a bit. Lunch time, playtime and music time (we like to dance like a couple of looneys, lol) and then we get Aiden.

I set limits for them both, and they understand that the TV is not there to be watched all ding-dang day. I want my boys to have minds that are stimulated by things other than the bright flashing colors, and mostly irritating sounds coming from the boob tube. Plus... the cartoons these days are AWFUL!! I watch everything that they watch, and I have flat out FORBIDDEN Spongebob (his voice grates on my nerves), Ed, Edd, and Eddy and a few others on Cartoon Network. Why? They are not very entertaining in my view and I don't think the kids need to see that kind of humor... which most of the time is VERY questionable, and somewhat adult oriented.

I also rent DVDs from Netflix that we all watch together from time to time.

Anyway... if the kids understand that it is not their source of education... I don't see TV watching as really all that bad... unless it's unsupervised and a constant in the child's life.

Does that make sense to anyone or are my preggo hormones going wonky again and interfering with my ability to convey my thoughts? lol.

~ Ravenna

[BlackLili]

I think this is a fantastic study, and I hope Dr Sigman continues to be funded for a long, long time.

My parents restricted our TV watching to "Sesame Street" and "3-2-1-Countdown" (a math show) until we were in middle school at least, and even then, we were restricted to only a couple hours a day, after homework and clubs and sports and anything else they could throw at us.

We went for "field trips" to the library before we could walk. Mom would pull my brother and I in our little red wagon up the street to the library, then pull us back home with our pile of "Word Bird" books. We were both reading by rote before we were 3, and were able to read our own books by 4 and 5 years old.

Funny story to add onto Yote's story about the Children's section at the library and the kids who are more articulate than others -

When I was 2, I was already speaking in sentences and was clear to most adults when I wanted something. Oftentimes, when my Mom would have me out with her at the store, I was still in the baby seat of the shopping cart. Strangers who loved my wild dark curls would come up to talk to my Mom, and then they would babytalk and babble at me until Mom said thank you and they moved on. She said that I often made those adults just about fall over half the time because I tended to wait until they finished babytalking and then politely ask them to repeat themselves "in grownup talk." Seems I didn't speak their dialect of baby-martian... :rollingla