Educational Psychology & Technology: Critical Perspectives and Resources
28.2K views | +9 today
Follow
Educational Psychology & Technology: Critical Perspectives and Resources
This curated collection includes news, resources, and research related to the intersections of Educational Psychology and Technology. The page also serves as a research tool to organize online content. The grey funnel shaped icon at the top allows for searching by keyword. For research more specific to tech, screen time and health/safety concerns, please see: http://bit.ly/screen_time, to learn about the next wave of privatization involving technology intersections with Pay For Success,  Social Impact Bonds, and Results Based Financing (often marketed with language promoting "public-private-partnerships"), see http://bit.ly/sibgamble, and for additional Educator Resources, please visit http://EduResearcher.com [Links to an external site].
Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Scooped by Roxana Marachi, PhD
Scoop.it!

Ed Tech Cashes In on the Pandemic

Ed Tech Cashes In on the Pandemic | Educational Psychology & Technology: Critical Perspectives and Resources | Scoop.it

By Gayle Green

When schools shut down in mid-March, teachers rose valiantly to the occasion, redoing courses so they could be taught online, figuring out ways of reaching the many students who do not have high-speed internet. About a month into the retooling, a video appeared that gave vent to the frustration many were feeling in this netherworld of cyber teaching. A sweet young woman introduces herself as “the music teacher,” and says she’s composed an ode to online teaching. After a few disarming chords on her ukulele, she lets out a primal scream. That scream made the rounds of social media, even making national news.

The transition to online teaching made everyone aware of the value of person-to-person communication. The human signals that tell a teacher how a class is reacting—the sighs, groans, snorts, giggles, eye rolls, glances, body language—are stripped away online. The teacher can’t even tell if she’s being heard. Warmth is difficult to express; rapport, trust, bonding almost impossible to build. “Kids can be hard to motivate under the best of circumstances,” says teacher blogger Steven Singer, “but try doing it through a screen.” Students say so, too: “I can’t get myself to care … I just feel really disconnected from everything.”

Ed tech companies lost no time moving in. “When the pandemic hit, right away we got a list of all these technology companies that make education software that were offering free access to their products for the duration of the coronavirus crisis,” said Gordon Lafer, political economist at the University of Oregon and a member of his local school board. “They pitch these offerings as stepping up to help out the country in a moment of crisis. But it’s also like coke dealers handing out free samples.” Marketing has become so aggressive that a school superintendent near Seattle tweeted a heartfelt appeal to vendors: “Please stop. Just stop … my superintendent colleagues and I … need to focus on our communities. Let us do our jobs.” Her plea hit a nerve, prompting a survey by the National Superintendents Roundtable that revealed “a deep vein of irritation and discontent” at the barrage of texts, emails, and phone calls, “a distraction and nuisance” when they’re trying to deal with the COVID-19 crisis. Comments on this survey ranged from “negative in the extreme” to “scathing,” and expressed concerns that these products “have not been validated” and that “free” offers conceal contracts for long-term pay.

For the past two decades, ed tech has been pushing into public schools, convincing districts to invest in tablets, software, online programs, assessment tools. Many superintendents have allowed these incursions, directing funding to technology that might have been better spent on human resources, teachers, counselors, nurses, librarians (up to $5.6 billion of school technology purchased sits unused, according to a 2019 analysis in EdWeek Market Brief). Now the pandemic has provided ed tech a “golden opportunity,” a “tailwind” (these are the terms we hear): Michael Moe, head of the venture capitalist group Global Silicon Valley, says: “We see the education industry today as the health care industry of 30 years ago.” Not a happy thought.

Ed tech proponents have long claimed that classrooms are obsolete and that online is the future of education. Frederick Hess, director of education policy studies at the Koch-funded American Enterprise Institute, urges that the United States’ $700 billion public-education budget should be spent on “a bunch of online materials—along with a device for every child and better connectivity.” Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, who has close ties with the Koch network, also sees the classroom as obsolete: “If our ability to educate is limited to what takes place in any given physical building, we are never going to meet the unique needs of every student.”...

 

They may get their way.

“Personalized” Learning Without Persons

In May, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced his intention “to work with the Gates Foundation to … develop a blueprint to reimagine education in the new normal.” “The old model of everybody goes and sits in a classroom and the teacher is in front of that classroom and teaches that class, and you do that all across the city, all across the state, all these buildings, all these physical classrooms,” Cuomo said. “Why, with all the technology you have?”

 

Bill Gates has been promoting various versions of so-called personalized learning for decades. Personalized programs are different from the online teaching most teachers did this spring, in that they eliminate the need for the teacher. Their interactive software has the student interacting with the computer, not a human being. They’re called “personalized” because an algorithm based on a student’s past performance generates “learning plans” tailored to her level and interests. The student sits, encased in headphones, responding to prompts, clicking her way through preset steps to predetermined answers; she demonstrates “competencies” by passing a test, then moves on to the next task and the next test, until she receives a “digital badge.” The student is said to be in charge, to have “ownership” of her education.

 

Far from putting her in charge, such programs make the student what the program says she should be. Paul Emerich France, a teacher who went to work for a Silicon Valley startup as a true believer but became rapidly disillusioned, describes personalized learning as “isolating … impersonal … disembodied and disconnected, with a computer constantly being a mediator between my students and me”: It “dehumanizes the learning environment.” Personalized programs may offer students choices about where and when to do assignments and whether they want dogs or cupcakes in their math and grammar exercises, but this is trivial compared with the excitement, curiosity, discovery that a live class can generate that actually can put a student in charge."...

 

For full post, please visit:

 

 

https://prospect.org/api/amp/education/ed-tech-cashes-in-on-the-pandemic/ 

 

 

Brenda VanDenBerg's curator insight, September 7, 3:23 PM
With the move toward more online teaching,  it raises a very important question.  Is teaching simply providing students with information or is the human aspect of a teacher who can understand the students, the key to education, and successful learning?  
Scooped by Roxana Marachi, PhD
Scoop.it!

Mass school closures in the wake of the coronavirus are driving a new wave of student surveillance // Washington Post

Mass school closures in the wake of the coronavirus are driving a new wave of student surveillance // Washington Post | Educational Psychology & Technology: Critical Perspectives and Resources | Scoop.it

"Colleges are racing to sign deals with 'online proctor' companies that watch students through their webcams while they take exams. Education advocates say the surveillance software forces students to choose between privacy and their grades."


By Drew Harwell

"When University of Florida sophomore Cheyenne Keating felt a rush of nausea a few weeks ago during her at-home statistics exam, she looked into her webcam and asked the stranger on the other side: Is it okay to throw up at my desk?

 

He said yes. So halfway through the two-hour test, during which her every movement was scrutinized for cheating and no bathroom breaks were permitted, she vomited into a wicker basket, dabbed the mess with a blanket and got right back to work. The stranger saw everything. When the test was finished, he said she was free to log off. Only then could she clean herself up.

 

“Online proctor” services like these have already policed millions of American college exams, tapping into students’ cameras, microphones and computer screens when they take their tests at home. Now these companies are enjoying a rush of new business as the coronavirus pandemic closes thousands of American schools, and executives are racing to capture new clients during what some are calling a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.

 

The live proctors these companies hire ensure test-takers abide by a strict set of rules. They watch the students’ faces, listen to them talk and can demand they aim their cameras around the room to prove their honesty. Some companies also use facial-recognition, eye-tracking and other software that purports to detect cheating and rates the students’ “academic integrity.”

 

Looking off-screen for too long, for instance, can raise a test-taker’s “suspicion” score, potentially leading them to fail the exam. The companies sign contracts with the schools, which cover some of the cost, though many charge students, too: One company, ProctorU, charges students about $15 per test, while another, Proctorio, offers a $100 “lifetime fee.”

“It’s insanity. I shouldn’t be happy. I know a lot of people aren’t doing so well right now, but for us — I can’t even explain it,” Proctorio’s chief executive Mike Olsen said in an interview. “We’ll probably increase our value by four to five X just this year.”

 

The explosive growth casts light on what could be a pivotal moment for mass surveillance in the United States as privacy concerns clash with the unprecedented realities of a modern pandemic. Hundreds of thousands of students have been sent home from universities, and millions of high school students have seen their local schools closed for the rest of the year.

With more schools pushing to track students’ locations across campus and their testing behaviors at home, education advocates worry the systems are invading students’ personal lives and reducing the practice of learning to a forensic investigation, where students are presumed cheaters until proven upright.

 

“To take a test you need to let a stranger have a video recording of your room? Are you kidding me?” said Bill Fitzgerald, a researcher at the nonprofit group Consumer Reports who specializes in education technology.

 

“These platforms exist because they are selling a narrative that students can’t be trusted,” he said. “The people who have the most to lose here are the students, and they’re the farthest away from the decision. … Students are paying tens of thousands of dollars to have their higher-ed institutions sell them out.”

 

Students bothered by the system’s intrusive eye previously were given the option of taking their exams the old-fashioned way, in a classroom or a testing center. But with campuses shut down, students’ participation has become effectively mandatory — just before their final exams.

 

The systems have already unnerved students like Neil Buettner, a 28-year-old Marine Corps veteran and student at Harford Community College in Churchville, Md., who was incensed by the demands made by the online proctor service Honorlock before taking his microeconomics exam.

 

“It’s talking about how it wants to access my computer, my microphone, the webcam. Monitor what’s in the room around me, scan my room. It wants to scan my ID!” he said in an interview. When his professor said he had no option to take the test in person, he opted instead to drop the class. “It’s just a huge step backward,” Buettner said. “Everyone’s giving up their freedom just for the virus.”

 

Those concerns have not dented the appeal of companies like Proctorio, which staffs four sales offices in the United States and Europe and oversaw more than 1.2 million students during the December peak. Olsen said he expects their business could more than triple by the school year’s end.

 

The company, which typically adds 100 new universities as clients in a single year, is now fielding about 120 leads a day. Big universities that would normally churn through a months-long negotiation now want to rush deals through in a matter of days. And reluctant administrators and professors, he said, are suddenly finding “they’re being forced” to try it out.

 

The coronavirus lockdowns have also forced some companies to allow their proctors to work remotely instead of in a supervised office — raising alarms among privacy advocates over who’s gaining access to students’ bedroom video streams. One company, Examity, whose proctor centers in India were recently closed, has posted job listings for full-time contractors who would start watching test-takers as early as this month.

 

The software’s invasive demands on students have also sparked fury among some professors. A faculty group at the University of California at Santa Barbara wrote a letter to campus leaders last month that argued that the adoption of ProctorU could turn the university into “a surveillance tool.”

 

“We recognize … there are trade-offs and unfortunate aspects of the migration online that we must accept,” they wrote. “This is not one of them. We are not willing to sacrifice the privacy and digital rights of our students for the expediency of a take-home final exam.” (A ProctorU attorney responded with a letter threatening legal action over the group’s “defamatory correspondence.”)

 

ProctorU’s chief executive, Scott McFarland, said the skeptics are outnumbered by newly interested school leaders: On a single day last month, his office fielded nearly 1,000 calls from educators asking about the service. The company, he said, has worked largely with colleges and private high schools, but the pandemic has opened the possibility of expanding into grade school exams.

 

“It was a slow wave, but this changes everything and makes it more like a tsunami event,” he added. “There’s just so much opportunity in places we haven’t really chased before.”

 

At the start of a ProctorU test, students are told to show the proctor their student ID cards, their rooms and the tops of their desks to prove they don’t have any cheating material at hand. During the test, the proctor listens through the student’s microphone to ensure he or she does not ask for help from someone out of view.

 

The proctor gains access to the test-takers’ computer screens and receives alerts if they do something unacceptable, like copying and pasting text or opening a new browser tab. A video system analyzes the students’ eyes: If they look off-screen for four straight seconds more than two times in a single minute, the motion will be flagged as a suspect event — a hint that they could be referencing notes posted off-screen.

 

To ensure the right student is taking the exam, the software uses facial-recognition software to match them to the image on their ID. Random scans are performed throughout the exam to prevent another test-taker from jumping in.

 

The company also verifies identities with a typing test: A student may be asked to type 140 words at the beginning of the semester, then again just before testing to verify the speed and rhythms of the student’s keystrokes. Any discrepancies can be flagged for closer inspection.

 

A human proctor watches every second of an exam, though the student cannot see the proctor’s face. In previous versions of the software, the student could see the person watching them, but “the creepiness factor always sort of came up,” McFarland said. If a proctor suspects cheating, they alert a more aggressive specialist, known as an “interventionist,” who can demand that the student aim his or her webcam at a suspicious area or face academic penalty.

 

Proctors typically work out of one of 11 centers across Alabama, California, India, Jamaica, Panama and the Philippines. But with many of those offices closed, the company said, it is opening backup centers in Canada, hiring more than 100 new workers and instructing many proctors to work from home.

 

ProctorU, which oversaw 2 million tests last year from more than 750,000 students, has compiled years of data on students’ 15 “behavioral cheating types,” McFarland said. Students’ tests are live-streamed and recorded for later review: The worst offenders, McFarland said, have had their videos edited together into what he called a cheating “Hall of Fame.”

ProctorU’s competitors offer similar anti-cheating surveillance with different strategies. Honorlock, a Florida-based company that CEO Michael Hemlepp said has seen “a massive spike in inquiries,” uses software that looks for “attempted dishonesty” and then sends in a human proctor for further review.

 

Proctorio goes further, using a completely software-driven approach. After students consent to letting Proctorio monitor their webcams, microphones, desktops or “any other means necessary to uphold integrity,” the system tracks their speech and eye movements, how long they took to complete the test and how many times they clicked the mouse. It then gives professors an automated report ranking test-takers by “suspicion level” and the number of testing “abnormalities.” Students deemed untrustworthy by the computer are color-coded in red and given an icon of two shadowy figures..."

 

For full post, please visit:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/04/01/online-proctoring-college-exams-coronavirus/

No comment yet.
Scooped by Roxana Marachi, PhD
Scoop.it!

Paper Books Beat Tablets for Parent-Child Interactions // WebMD

Paper Books Beat Tablets for Parent-Child Interactions // WebMD | Educational Psychology & Technology: Critical Perspectives and Resources | Scoop.it

By Dennis Thompson
HealthDay Reporter

MONDAY, Sept. 30, 2019 (HealthDay News) -- Parents seeking quality reading time with their toddlers would do well to choose an old-fashioned book over a newfangled e-reader, a new study argues.

 

Parents and kids appear to have a better shared experience when they're reading a book together than when they read with a tablet, researchers report.

 

Parent and child tended to tussle over the tablet, explained lead researcher Dr. Tiffany Munzer, a fellow in developmental behavior pediatrics at the University of Michigan's C.S. Mott Children's Hospital.

 

"In this study, print books were great for promoting an environment that was rich with reciprocity, but the tablet appeared to create some conflict between parents and toddlers who were both trying to control the tablet," Munzer said.

 

This study isn't the first by Munzer to raise questions regarding the value of e-books when reading to young children. Another study published in Pediatrics last March looked at verbal interactions when parent and child shared an e-book.

 

In that study, parents and toddlers talked more when reading print books, and were more likely to hold the book or turn pages together. Toddlers presented with an e-book became focused on tapping or swiping the screen and didn't pay as much attention to either the story being told or the parent reading to them.

 

Munzer's latest study focused on nonverbal signs of "social reciprocity" -- the back-and-forth exchanges that happen between parents and children when they're sharing a task.

 

This act of sharing "creates moments of joy, and is the foundation for child development. It is how children learn new words, gain emotional competence, and builds on their problem-solving abilities," Munzer said. "Social reciprocity is how relationships are nurtured and is important for our future generation's development and achievement."

 

In the latest study, Munzer and her University of Michigan colleagues observed 37 parent-toddler pairs reading together in a laboratory using three different book formats -- print, basic e-readers and enhanced e-books on tablets.

 

The enhanced e-readers contained extra elements like sound effects and animation. The basic e-books allowed for swiping to turn the pages and tapping illustrations to elicit the appearance of words, but there was no auto-narration or sound effects.

 

The three books were all from Mercer Mayer's "Little Critter" series, and were similar in length and reading difficulty.

 

The researchers found differences in nonverbal communication from both parents and children when engaging with a tablet, Munzer said.

"Children used the tablet books in a more solitary or independent fashion, which prevented parents from easily viewing or accessing the book and made it harder for parents to communicate with their children," Munzer said.

Both the toddlers and their parents also tried to exert control over the experience when reading with a tablet. Rather than working together, they would push each other's hand away or move the tablet away from each other. Toddlers might even try grabbing the tablet.

"These behaviors may interfere with the back-and-forth engagement between parents and children," Munzer said.

The findings were published Sept. 30 in the journal JAMA Pediatrics.

 

Pediatricians often stress the beneficial aspects of reading with your toddler, including better language development and more positive social interactions, said Dr. David Fagan, vice chair of pediatrics at Cohen Children's Medical Center in New Hyde Park, N.Y.

These findings show that "in the 21st century we as pediatricians need to think about technology as it pertains to reading," Fagan said. "We can't assume that reading with your child equates to sharing a book.

"It seems that tablets are perceived by children as solitary devices to be controlled by them, and their use in shared reading may promote negative interactions," Fagan continued. "So, the message to parents about reading needs to emphasize using traditional books, and if parents choose to read on a tablet with their child they need to be aware of the behaviors described in this study."

 

Dr. Michael Grosso, chief medical officer and chair of pediatrics for Northwell Health's Huntington Hospital in Huntington, N.Y., said "more studies of this kind are clearly warranted."

Grosso was reminded of a science fiction story by Isaac Asimov while reading this study.


"The author described an advanced technology that involved a user interface that allowed one to modulate the flow of information from the device using nothing other than one's eyes and mind control," Grosso said. "The author was describing, of course, a book. Books -- and parents reading to children -- are as valuable for children now as they ever were."

 

For original post, please visit:

https://www.webmd.com/parenting/news/20190930/paper-books-beat-tablets-for-parent-child-interactions-study-finds 

No comment yet.
Scooped by Roxana Marachi, PhD
Scoop.it!

Johns Hopkins Researchers Found “Significant Problems” With Summit Platform Use in Providence Schools // E-Learning Inside

Johns Hopkins Researchers Found “Significant Problems” With Summit Platform Use in Providence Schools // E-Learning Inside | Educational Psychology & Technology: Critical Perspectives and Resources | Scoop.it

By Henry Kronk

"In May, Rhode Island Department of Education Commissioner Angelica Infante-Green invited researchers from the Johns Hopkins Institute for Education Policy to review the Providence Public School District. Part of their investigation reported on the use of Summit Learning, a free platform developed by Summit Public Schools (a charter network in the Bay Area) and the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative.

 

The Providence Public School District has not been in great shape for some time. According to scores on the Rhode Island Comprehensive Assessment System (RICAS), just 10% of Providence students scored proficient in math, while 14% were proficient in language arts, across grade levels. 87.7% of students enrolled in the 2017-18 school year qualified for free or reduced lunch.

The district, therefore, might make for an ideal candidate for Summit Learning. When Summit CEO Diane Tavenner launched her first school in Redwood City, Calif. in 2003, the school drew its first class from a student body where 90% were poor and 90% were English learners, according to Mother Jones. Tavenner and her staff managed to graduate 100% of Summit’s first cohort.

If 2019 was anything like past years in Providence, that likely did not occur. While some Providence schools report graduation rates in the high 90s, many others fall below 70%, according to the Rhode Island Department of Education. The Providence Public School District, like many urban American education systems, deals every year with numerous issues that amount to a steep uphill struggle.

When it comes to the act of learning and academic performance, according to the Johns Hopkins researchers led by Dr. Jay Plasman, Summit Learning has not helped. The team found “significant problems in the use of the Summit Learning Platform.” The researchers observed numerous occasions of plug-and-play teaching, where the instructor set every student to work individually on the platform without leading or engaging the class.

“In one school, we did not observe a single Summit math teacher engage in whole-class or even small-group math instruction,” the researchers write. “Instead, teachers either completed work at their desks, and/or answered questions when students raised their hand. Finally, the lack of teacher surveillance of student progress in some Summit classrooms meant that students worked very slowly through the material.”

This lack of teacher engagement allowed for numerous misuses of the platform. Many students were observed spending long periods off-task. Some worked on assignments for other classes. Others watched unrelated YouTube videos.

Plasman’s team also found another trait that has been reported elsewhere: students often don’t go through the material on Summit Learning, but instead skip right to the assessment and try to guess their way through to the next section.

“To paint a picture of one Summit classroom at a given moment during our visit: Four students were working on history, one student stalled on an index screen, one stalled on a choice screen, one focused on a screen with other (non-math) content, two doing mathematics well below grade-level work, and two doing mathematics at, or close to, grade level,” the researchers write.

The team found that the platform was “almost universally disliked” among students.

 

Interviewees reported being bored, burnt-out, and uncomfortable with the amount of screen time the platform required."...

 

The Providence Journal has published the investigation in full.

 

Featured Image: Shannon S, Unsplash.

 

For original post, please visit:

https://news.elearninginside.com/johns-hopkins-researchers-found-significant-problems-with-summit-learning-use-in-providence-schools/ 

No comment yet.
Scooped by Roxana Marachi, PhD
Scoop.it!

Young Children in the Digital Age // Dr. Nancy Carlsson-Paige

Young Children in the Digital Age // Dr. Nancy Carlsson-Paige | Educational Psychology & Technology: Critical Perspectives and Resources | Scoop.it

By Dr. Nancy Carlsson-Paige

"Technology cascaded into all of our lives in a very short period of time. Many of us are struggling to make sense of it, to figure out how we can use technology well. It has been a challenge for every age group. Some of the concerns we read about are serious—the psychological effects of social media, the breeches on privacy, health issues like sleep disturbance, eye strain, and perhaps other effects waiting to emerge.1 Many of these risks have their biggest impact on young children because their bodies and minds are still

forming.

 

Many parents find it hard to make decisions about screen time for their kids because advice comes from different directions and often conflicts. In the field of child development, we have decades of theory and research that can be very helpful as a guide for screen and digital device use with young kids. These ideas can be a resource for you to depend on when you are trying to figure out about any screen, app, or digital device your child might want to use. From child development theory and research, we know a great deal about how children learn and develop and what they need in order to grow to their full potential. In this report, I’ll offer you six core ideas that come from the field of child development that can be helpful in evaluating screen and technology use with young children."...

  

Young Children in the Digital Age

https://www.deyproject.org/uploads/1/5/5/7/15571834/young_children_in_the_digital_age_final_final.pdf 

No comment yet.
Scooped by Roxana Marachi, PhD
Scoop.it!

Online Preschool: "Innovation" or Exploitation? // Invited Presentation for Screen Time Action Network Conference, Boston, MA, April 2018

Download by clicking on title or arrow above in order to access links. For research and updates on Screen Time and Tech Safety, see http://bit.ly/screen_time. For more about Social Impact Bonds or "Pay For Success" programs, see: http://bit.ly/sibgamble.

No comment yet.
Scooped by Roxana Marachi, PhD
Scoop.it!

Dr. Catherine Steiner-Adair on Screen Time Concerns Related to Child Development 

"Dr. Catherine Steiner-Adair is a Clinical Psychologist, Consultant, Speaker, and Author of The Big Disconnect: Protecting Childhood and Family Relationships in the Digital Age. This is a video clip is from a longer talk she gave in Framingham, MA on June 10th, 2015.

 

For viewers interested in additional information and research related to screen time concerns, see slides from NAACP Conference on the ESSA and Civil Rights in Education in San Jose, CA, August 19th, 2017. "Health and Safety Research Gaps in Policies and Practices Integrating Emerging Technologies for Young Children": http://sco.lt/58869R"

 

To view video on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjnFPo_mk6s&feature=youtu.be  

No comment yet.
Rescooped by Roxana Marachi, PhD from Screen Time, Tech Safety & Harm Prevention Research
Scoop.it!

Health and Safety Research Gaps in Policies and Practices Integrating Emerging Technologies for Young Children 

Links are as follows in order of the slides: 

http://www.commercialfreechildhood.org/action/tell-fisher-price-no-ipad-bouncy-seats-infants 

 

The Silicon Valley Billionaires Remaking America's Schools 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/06/technology/tech-billionaires-education-zuckerberg-facebook-hastings.html 

 

Dr. Catherine Steiner-Adair
Clinical Psychologist and Research Associate at Harvard Medical School https://childmind.org/bio/catherine-steiner-adair/ 

 

Video link may be viewed at: https://youtu.be/pjnFPo_mk6s 

 

Carter B, Rees P, Hale L, Bhattacharjee D, Paradkar MS. Association Between Portable Screen-Based Media Device Access or Use and Sleep Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.JAMA Pediatr. 2016 Oct 31. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2016.2341. [Epub ahead of print] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27802500?dopt=Abstract 

 

Screen Time Hurts More Than Kids' Eyes

http://www.healthline.com/health-news/screen-time-hurts-more-than-kids-eyes-101215 

 

New Media Consortium / Consortium for School Networking Horizon Report 
http://cdn.nmc.org/media/2016-nmc-cosn-horizon-report-k12-EN.pdf 

 

"American Revolution 2.0: How Education Innovation is Going to Revitalize America and Transform the U.S. Economy"  http://sco.lt/5JnF7B 

 

"Preschool is Good For Children But It's Expensive So Utah Is Offering It Online" https://www.washingtonpost.co m/local/education/preschool-is- good-for-poor-kids-but-its- expensive-so-utah-is-offering-it- online/2015/10/09/27665e52- 5e1d-11e5-b38e- 06883aacba64_story.html  

 

Philanthropy Roundtable's: "Blended Learning: Wise Givers Guide to Supporting Tech-Assisted Learning"

http://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/file_uploads/Blended_Learning_Guidebook.pdf (Formerly chaired by B. DeVos)  

 

CyberCharters Have Overwhelming Negative Impact 

 

Ma, J., van den Heuvel, M., Maguire, J., Parkin, P., Birken, C. (2017). Is handheld screen time use associated with language delay in infants? Presented at the Pediatric Academic Societies Meeting, San Francisco, CA. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170504083141.htm  

 

Jonathan Rochelle’s GSV/ASU PRIMETIME Keynote Speech pitching Google Cardboard for children in schools as proxy for actual field trips: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNqYMI89umE 

 

Scientists Urge Google to Stop Untested Microwave Radiation of Children's Eyes and Brains with Virtual Reality Devices in Schools  http://sco.lt/8ZY5Zp // https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B12B4w0bwyQ_bzRTSUtfb2lORXM/view  Asus product manual

http://dlcdnet.asus.com/pub/ASUS/ZenFone/ZE550ML/e10509_ze550ml_ze551ml_em_0601.pdf 

 

Telecom Industry Liability and Insurance Information 

http://sco.lt/6MrkcT 

 

National Association for Children and Safe Technology - iPad Information 

 

For infant/pregnancy related safety precautions, please visit http://BabySafeProject.org 

 

194 Signatories (physicians, scientists, educators) on Joint Statement on Pregnancy and Wireless Radiation http://sco.lt/7C2N3B 

 

Article screenshot from France: "Portables. L'embrouille des ondes electromagnetiques  

http://sco.lt/68rtCb

 

Wireless Phone Radiation Risks and Public Policy

http://bit.ly/wirelessradiationUCLA102215 

 

"Show The Fine Print" 
http://ShowTheFinePrint.org 

 

Scientist petition calls for greater protective measures for children and pregnant women, cites need for precautionary health warnings, stronger regulation of electromagnetic fields, creation of EMF free zones, and media disclosures of experts’ financial relationships with industry when citing their opinions regarding the safety of EMF-emitting technologies. Published in European Journal of Oncology http://sco.lt/8SDDd3 

 

International Agency for Research on Cancer Classifies Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields as Possibly Carcinogenic to Humans (2011)

 

For more on source of funding research, see: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1797826/ and http://ascopubs.org/doi/abs/10.1200/jco.2008.21.6366 

 

Maryland State Children’s Environmental Health and Protection Advisory Council // Public Testimony https://youtu.be/8sCV1l7IfDY?t=7m15s

 

"Until now, radiation from cell towers has not been considered a risk to children, but a recent study raises new questions about possible long-term, harmful effects."  http://sco.lt/5tm5dx 

 

For further reading, please see Captured Agency report published by Harvard’s Center for Ethics http://sco.lt/4qwS2r  or https://ethics.harvard.edu/files/center-for-ethics/files/capturedagency_alster.pdf 

 

Updates/posts/safety information on Virtual Reality:

http://www.scoop.it/t/emf-wireless-radiation?q=virtual 

 

Environmental Health Trust Virtual Reality Radiation Absorption Slides 

https://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/Virtual-reality-Slides-1.pdf 

 

Healthy Kids in a Digital World:

http://commercialfreechildhood.org/healthykidsdigitalworld 

 

National Association for Children and Safe Technology http://nacst.org 

 

Doctors’ Letters on Wifi in Schools// 154 page compilation

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8Oub2Nx5eSLNEthQmNlb3ZGcTQ/view 

 

Insurance and Liability Disclaimers/Information from Telecom Companies https://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/Telecom-10-K-Liability-and-Insurance-Companies-Slides-EHT-6-2016.pdf 

  

Most of the documents and articles embedded within the presentation above are searchable/accessible on the following page: http://bit.ly/screen_time
_______________________________

Document above is a pdf with live links. They are provided above for easier access. To download the original file, please click on title or arrow above. It is a large file so may take several minutes.  

 
No comment yet.
Scooped by Roxana Marachi, PhD
Scoop.it!

"The Future of Learning: Education in the Era of Partners in Code" // KnowledgeWorks Forecast 4.0

[Note: Inclusion of the attached report on the EdPsych/Tech collection does not indicate endorsement of the publication. Rather, the document is provided to illustrate the stark research-to-practice gaps in proposed shifts to technologize learning without attention to health/developmental hazards of extended screen use.]

 

To download the document, visit here: http://www.knowledgeworks.org/sites/default/files/forecast-4-future-learning-education-partners-code.pdf 

 

For collection of research reports, updates, and concerns related to screen time effects on children's development/health, please see: 

http://bit.ly/screen_time 

 

No comment yet.
Rescooped by Roxana Marachi, PhD from Screen Time, Tech Safety & Harm Prevention Research
Scoop.it!

How Companies Learn What Children Secretly Want // The Conversation

How Companies Learn What Children Secretly Want // The Conversation | Educational Psychology & Technology: Critical Perspectives and Resources | Scoop.it

Cookie image via www.shutterstock.com 

 

"If you have children, you are likely to worry about their safety – you show them safe places in your neighborhood and you teach them to watch out for lurking dangers.  But you may not be aware of some online dangers to which they are exposed through their schools.

 

There is a good chance that people and organizations you don’t know are collecting information about them while they are doing their schoolwork. And they may be using this information for purposes that you know nothing about.

 

In the U.S. and around the world, millions of digital data points are collected daily from children by private companies that provide educational technologies to teachers and schools. Once data are collected, there is little in law or policy that prevents companies from using the information for almost any purpose they wish.

 

Our research explores how corporate entities use their involvement with schools to gather and use data about students. We find that often these companies use the data they collect to market products, such as junk food, to children.

 

Here’s how student data are being collected

 

Almost all U.S. middle and high school students use mobile devices. A third of such devices are issued by their schools. Even when using their own devices for their schoolwork, students are being encouraged to use applications and software, such as those with which they can create multimedia presentations, do research, learn to type or communicate with each other and with their teachers.

 

When children work on their assignments, unknown to them, the software and sites they use are busy collecting data.

 

For example, “Adaptive learning” technologies record students' keystrokes, answers and response times. On-line surveys collect information about students' personalities. Communication software stores the communications between students, parents and teachers; and presentation software stores students' work and their communications about it.

 

In addition, teachers and schools may direct children to work on branded apps or websites that may collect, or allow third parties to collect, IP addresses and other information from students. This could include the ads children click on, what they download, what games they play, and so on.

How student data are used


When “screen time” is required for school, parents cannot limit or control it. Companies use this time to find out more about children’s preferences, so they they can target children with advertising and other content with a personalized appeal.

 

Children might see ads while they are working in educational apps. In other cases, data might be collected while students complete their assignments. Information might also be stored and used to better target them later.

For instance, a website might allow a third party to collect information, including the type of browser used, the time and date, and the subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over by a child. The third party could then use that information to target the child with advertisements later.

 

We have found that companies use the data to serve ads (for food, clothing, games, etc.) to the children via their computers. This repeated, personalized advertising is designed specifically to manipulate children to want and buy more things.

 

Indeed, over time this kind of advertising can threaten children’s physical and psychological well-being.

 

Consequences of targeted advertising

Food is the most heavily advertised class of products to children. The heavy digital promotion of “junk” food is associated with negative health outcomes such as obesity, heart disease and diabetes.

Additionally, advertising, regardless of the particular product it may sell, also “sells” to children the idea that products can make them happy.

 

Research shows that children who buy into this materialist worldview are more likely to suffer from anxiety, depression and other psychological distress.

Teenagers who adopt this worldview are more likely to smoke, drink and skip school. One set of studies showed that advertising makes children feel far from their ideals for themselves in terms of how good a life they lead and what their bodies look like.

 

The insecurity and dissatisfaction may lead to negative behaviors such as compulsive buying and disordered eating.

 

Aren’t there laws to protect children’s privacy?

 

Many bills bearing on student privacy have been introduced in the past several years in Congress and state legislatures. Several of them have been enacted into laws.

 

Additionally, nearly 300 software companies signed a self-regulatory Student Privacy Pledge to safeguard student privacy regarding the collection, maintenance and use of student personal information. However, they aren’t sufficient. And here’s why:

 

First of all, most laws, including the Student Privacy Pledge, focus on Personally Identifiable Information (PII). PII includes information that can be used to determine a person’s identity, such as that person’s name, social security number or biometric information.

Companies can address privacy concerns by making digital data anonymous (i.e., not including PII in the data that are collected, stored or shared). However, data can easily be “de-anonymized.” And, children don’t need to be identified with PII in order for their online behavior to be tracked.

 

Second, bills designed to protect student privacy sometimes expressly preserve the ability of an operator to use student information for adaptive or personalized learning purposes. In order to personalize the assignments that a program gives a student, it must by necessity track that student’s behavior.

 

This weakens the privacy protections the bills otherwise offer. Although it protects companies that collect data for adaptive learning purposes only, it also provides a loophole that enables data collection.

Finally, the Student Privacy Pledge has no real enforcement mechanism. As it is a voluntary pledge, many companies may scrupulously abide by the promises in the pledge, but many others may not."...

  

For full post, click on title or picture above or see: https://theconversation.com/how-companies-learn-what-children-secretly-want-63178 

 

No comment yet.
Scooped by Roxana Marachi, PhD
Scoop.it!

Daniel Willingham: The False Promise of Tech in Schools

Daniel Willingham: The False Promise of Tech in Schools | Educational Psychology & Technology: Critical Perspectives and Resources | Scoop.it

By Daniel Willingham
"It’s time to admit we don’t know what we’re doing when it comes to educational technology.

 

We’ve already had one round of chagrined admissions. About 10 years ago, the common practice was buying hardware and dropping it into schools: Every student got a laptop, perhaps, or every classroom got a computer-driven whiteboard. Policymakers finally realized that such purchases don’t boost student achievement or create a new generation of programmers.

 

Better planning is now more common, but it’s time for chagrined admission 2.0.

 

The problem is that tech purchasing decisions are usually not much better informed than your decision about whether or not to buy a smartwatch. History shows that perfectly sensible intuitions about how devices ought to work in classrooms often prove wrong.

 

Consider Amazon’s recent $30 million contract to sell e-books to New York City schools over a three-year period.  Reading on a screen would seem to be little different than reading on paper. Maybe even better: They can integrate video and audio, for example, and content can be updated easily. But in study after study, reading comprehension is actually a little worse on screens. That’s why even younger readers with lots of screen-based experience say they prefer paper."...

 

For full post, click on title above or here: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/daniel-willingham-false-promise-tech-schools-article-1.2636472 

No comment yet.
Scooped by Roxana Marachi, PhD
Scoop.it!

Race to Nowhere Trailer (Original)

"Theatrical Trailer Race to Nowhere: http://www.racetonowhere.com

Featuring the heartbreaking stories of young people across the country who have been pushed to the brink, educators who are burned out and worried that students aren't developing the skills they need, and parents who are trying to do what's best for their kids, Race to Nowhere points to the silent epidemic in our schools: cheating has become commonplace, students have become disengaged, stress-related illness, depression and burnout are rampant, and young people arrive at college and the workplace unprepared and uninspired.

Race to Nowhere is a call to mobilize families, educators, and policy makers to challenge current assumptions on how to best prepare the youth of America to become healthy, bright, contributing and leading citizens.

In a grassroots sensation already feeding a groundswell for change, hundreds of theaters, schools and organizations nationwide are hosting community screenings during a six month campaign to screen the film nationwide. Tens of thousands of people are coming together, using the film as the centerpiece for raising awareness, radically changing the national dialogue on education and galvanizing change."...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uem73imvn9Y 

No comment yet.
Scooped by Roxana Marachi, PhD
Scoop.it!

Dr. Victoria Dunckley // Electronic Screen Syndrome: The Overstimulated Child // Presented at Wireless Technology and Public Health Conference // Santa Clara County Medical Association Alliance Fou...

"Dr Victoria Dunckley is a Board Certified integrative child psychiatrist and author of "Reset Your Child's Brain: A Four-Week Plan to End Meltdowns, Raise Grades and Boost Social Skills by Reversing the Effects of Electronic Screen Time". She discusses the identification and management of screen-time's physiological effects on mood regulation, cognition, sleep, and behavior in children. She uses the phrase Electronic Screen Syndrome (ESS) to describe a disorder that many parents recognize but often do not know how to address. ESS and electronic addiction are on the rise in many countries. She offers an effective protocol for parents that has been successful for many of her young patients who exhibit the adverse behavioral and mood effects of too much screen time. http://www.drdunckley.com. This speech is part of a Wireless Technology and Public Health conference held Oct 10, 2015 in Mountain View, California sponsored by the Santa Clara County Medical Association Alliance Foundation." 


For links to the full set of talks, please visit:
http://www.saferemr.com/2015/10/wireless-technology-public-health-forum.html  



No comment yet.
Scooped by Roxana Marachi, PhD
Scoop.it!

The evolution of the global education industry during the pandemic // Code Acts in Education 

The evolution of the global education industry during the pandemic // Code Acts in Education  | Educational Psychology & Technology: Critical Perspectives and Resources | Scoop.it

By Ben Williamson

""Through the ‘pivot’ to ‘online learning’ and ‘emergency remote teaching’ during the Covid-19 emergency, educational technology (edtech) has become integral to education globally, with private sector and commercial organizations developing central roles in essential educational services. The effects are set to persist in temporary models of ‘socially distanced’ in-school and at-home learning during the period of pandemic recovery, and for longer in fully ‘hybrid’ approaches where commercial edtech and other private technology products and services are embedded in new models of curriculum, pedagogy, assessment, and school management. This post summarizes some key headlines from recent research conducted with Anna Hogan for Education International, the Global Union Federation that represents teachers and other education employees around the world, as part of its long-term global response to commercialization in schools.

 

The project, published as the freely accessible report Commercialization and privatization in/of education in the context of Covid-19, mapped out how privatization and commercialization of education advanced through the application of educational technologies during the 2020 pandemic. The report offers a provisional cartographical survey of the shifting landscape of commercialization and privatization in education, outlining its emerging contours and identifying coordinates and landmarks for further sustained attention from researchers, teacher unions and practitioners as public and state education systems begin the process of recovery.

 

We started off by recognizing that commercial technology has played a crucial and valuable role in educational continuity for millions of students worldwide, that there is an existing body of edtech research to inform and evaluate its use, and by acknowledging that commercial and private sector participation in education has a long and complex history. What we set out to explore, specifically, was the expanding scale and scope of commercialization and privatization during the pandemic, and its potential effects on state and public education, while recognizing longstanding problems with the structures, practices and governance of schooling.

Pandemic imaginaries
The project was informed by previous research on fast policy and policy mobility – the understanding that policy is the product of sprawling multisector networks of people, organizations and technologies, including commercial businesses – and by studies of technology which recognize that all technologies are shaped by the politics, assumptions and desires of their producers: technologies carry sociotechnical imaginaries of preferred futures that their producers seek to attain, and are also interpreted and utilized by others to achieve specific aims and visions. The expansion of commercial edtech during Covid is both a global fast policy event that involves multisector organizational webs, and a practical enactment of particular ways of envisaging the future of education that emerge from those networks, with potentially profound long-term implications for systems and practices of schooling.

One of the key findings detailed in the report is that a multisector global education industry of private, intergovernmental and commercial organizations has played a significant role in educational provision during the Covid-19 crisis, working at local, national and international scales to insert edtech into educational systems and practices. The global education industry has often set the agenda, offered technical solutions for government departments and ministries of education to follow, and is actively pursuing long-term reforms whereby private technology companies would be embedded in public education systems during the recovery from the Covid-19 crisis and beyond it in new models of ‘hybrid’ teaching and learning.

During the pandemic, this evolving instantiation of the global education industry produced and circulated powerful ideas about Covid-19 as a novel ‘opportunity’ to ‘reimagine’ education, treated home-based learning as a ‘microcosm’ of a digital future for hybrid forms of education, and encouraged ‘experimentation’ and ‘innovation’ to shape education systems for the future. It established the crisis as a catalytic opportunity for educational reimagining, reform and transformation, in ways that favour an acceleration in edtech rollout and that empower commercial organizations to participate more extensively and intensively in public and state schooling.

A key part of the global education industry’s approach during the pandemic is through coalition-making and developing the role of public-private partnerships in education policy. The role of commercial providers has been supported, promoted and advanced by a range of organizations that cut across public, private and third sectors. Some of the most influential promoters of edtech solutions during the pandemic include international multilateral organizations such as the World Bank, OECD, Global Partnerships for Education and UNESCO, in many cases operating in global multisector coalitions of public and private partners to promote ‘best practices’ for policymaking centres to emulate. Commercial edtech providers and advocacy organizations have also formed powerful networks and coalitions to highlight and promote edtech products for use by schools, teachers and parents.

These coalitions illustrate the emergence of new kinds of multisector public-private partnerships and fast policy networks in relation to edtech expansion, and the enhanced role of the private sector in educational delivery and governance. Although ministries of education have retained key decision-making powers, often they have been led and guided by various national and international networks that are orchestrating the educational response to the pandemic.

Edtech markets
A key part of the emergency response to education has been the creation of new market opportunities and the movement of money, especially from venture philanthropies and venture capital sources. Financial support and political advocacy for edtech solutions to school closures during the pandemic have been provided by technology philanthropies such as the Gates Foundation and the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative. They have dedicated new multimillion dollar funds to a range of edtech programs and sought to consolidate the long-term role of the private sector and commercial technology in public education.

Wealthy individual tech philanthropists have also been given positions of authority as experts in ‘reimagining’ education for the future, in ways which reflect their pre-existing visions, their financial support for technology-centred models of schooling, and their efforts to influence policy agendas.

Through pandemic philanthropy, individual technology wealth has become a key source for reimagining education and funding technical development to achieve those imagined futures. Naomi Klein has described the formation of a new ‘pandemic shock doctrine’ and a ‘Screen New Deal’ that is being brokered between governments and global technology firms by wealthy philanthropists.

Financial organizations, market intelligence agencies, venture capital, and impact investors have sought to capitalize on the pandemic too. With edtech investment already at high levels, especially in the US and southeast Asia, financial predictions of the value of edtech have stimulated capital markets, with the Covid-19 treated as a catalytic opportunity to capitalize on the sudden rise in use of technologies in education. Financial models including venture capital, exchange-trade funds, private equity, impact investing and social bonds have all been utilized to invest in and fund educational technologies during the pandemic. Market projections of the surging value of digital learning technologies over the coming decade are likely to attract further investors seeking profit from new disruptive models of public education. The pandemic has been characterized by edtech market-making: the effort to identify and capitalize on new and valuable market spaces for educational technologies.

 

Private solutions
Technology corporations have also expanded their digital solutions across education at international scale. Major multinational technology corporations including GoogleMicrosoft and Amazon have experienced a huge surge in demand for their products and services due to their capacity to deliver solutions at international scale, at speed, and for free. Supported by multilateral policy influencing organizations and national government departments, these companies have integrated schools, teachers and students into their global cloud systems and online education platforms, raising the prospect of widening and deepening long-term dependencies of public education institutions on private technology infrastructures. Social media platforms including YouTube and TikTok have also sought to grow their presence in education through content creation partnerships for students learning at home, with TikTok explicitly fast-tracking its investment in new ‘snack-sized’ micro-learning content to make the platform more appealing to advertisers.

 

Educational companies of various types – from global edu-businesses like Pearson to new startups – have also rapidly marketed and promoted their products for use by schools, often for free or heavily subsidized for a temporary period. Online schooling platforms are promoted by many education companies as long-term alternative models for education, and have experienced huge customer growth and investor interest. ‘AI’ technologies have also experienced significant growth, owing to their capacity to provide ‘personalized’ or automated education in the absence of teachers. Testing companies have scrambled to develop new ways of assessing students in the absence of conventional examinations, including the highly controversial use of machine learning for predictive grading. Moreover, student surveillance technologies have been adopted to monitor students’ virtual attendance, ‘proctor’ examinations, assess social-emotional learning and well-being, and enable schools to fulfil their safeguarding responsibilities.

 

At the same time, parents and students themselves have been approached as customers of edtech products, as a new market in consumer edtech has become the focus of investor enthusiasm. Direct-to-consumer edtech has opened up a novel niche for the shadow education market of private supplementary tutoring and homework platforms. These developments are extending the reach of edu-businesses to new areas of schooling and learning at home, and heightening their long-term influence over the format of education for the future.

 

Futures of education
Overall, the project has revealed a particular set of mutations in the global education industry during the Covid-19 pandemic. It has documented some ways in which privatization of education has expanded – through increasing participation of private actors in public education – and of how commercialization of education has developed through the creation, marketing and sale of education goods and services to schools (and parents) by external providers. We understand this as a particularly intense instantiation of fast policy involving multisector actors and networks, and as an accelerated realization of sociotechnical imaginaries of a highly digitalized future of education. The shifting landscape of commercialization and privatization in education we have surveyed will require sustained attention by educators, unions and researchers to ensure that all stakeholders, and not just private or commercial organizations, can participate democratically in imagining the post-Covid future of public education.

The full report is freely available from Education International. This post is an adapted version of the report summary.

 

For original post, please visit: 

https://codeactsineducation.wordpress.com/2020/07/14/evolution-global-education-industry-during-pandemic/ 

Stephanie Rivera's curator insight, October 6, 9:12 PM
Covid-19 have impacted our lives many ways especially our children having virtually school.  I'm sure the demand of laptop have increase and the companies providing these laptop finances have increase for sure.  Companies like google, amazon, and Microsoft have stock have raise tremendously due the high demand due to the virtual learning.  The students are using Chromebook, google meet, team meeting through Microsoft along with zoom and using amazon for ordering the materials needed and being open for business during this pandemic.
Scooped by Roxana Marachi, PhD
Scoop.it!

The Myth of the Empathy Machine: Virtual Reality Management Training is the Latest Development in the Modern History of Feeling Better about Capitalism

The Myth of the Empathy Machine: Virtual Reality Management Training is the Latest Development in the Modern History of Feeling Better about Capitalism | Educational Psychology & Technology: Critical Perspectives and Resources | Scoop.it

By Sam Heft-Luthy 
"Barry exists to be fired. Over and over again, Barry pops into simulated existence with one purpose: Teach management trainees the best way to let employees go.

 

Barry is built to respond to your cues as you explain the situation that had led to his termination: Due to recent outbursts toward co-workers, Barry is no longer welcome at your company. The choice of available prewritten script options help you navigate this conversation, but not without danger. Speak too softly and Barry will seize on your weakness and create an outburst; respond aggressively and Barry will break down crying.

 

Barry is a “Virtual Human” offered by Talespin, a company that provides workforce training through virtual reality simulation. The company received increased exposure after a recent MIT Technology Review article about Barry made the rounds on the internet. It’s part of a growing trend of virtual reality being used as a training tool for companies like Walmart and the NFL, as well as police departments looking for ways to help prepare officers for high-stress situations like domestic violence calls and active shooter events.

 

“Leadership skills represent the biggest gap between employer expectations and today’s workforce,” a video on Talespin’s website explains. “But as humans, our capacity for these skills is not set in stone.”

 

It's a sort of dialectical synthesis between George Clooney and Anna Kendrick’s characters in the movie Up In The Air — technology is a powerful tool, but it's that human touch when you're firing someone that really makes the difference. Barry exists to help you avoid making any major blunders, but primarily he exists to practice seeming like you care.

 

Emerging media forms, throughout their history, have long been theorized as extending the human ability to imagine or connect with the inner life of another being. The word “empathy” itself has roots in aesthetic philosophy as a translation of the German “Einfühlung” or “feeling into” — describing the process of projecting our own emotional sense into external objects, including works of art like sculpture and painting.

 

And this theorizing about the nature of empathy often comes alongside visions of new media, particularly virtual reality, as inherently liberatory — the idea being that the act of embodying the experience of others has transformative potential.

 

The now-infamous term “empathy machine,” coined by Roger Ebert to describe the medium of film, caught on as a way to describe virtual reality after a 2015 TED talk from filmmaker Chris Milk.

 

In the talk, Milk describes his history creating experiences that ask viewers to go past the “window” on the world provided by older media like film. With virtual reality, Milk says, one can step “through the window” and truly become a part of the world being represented.

 

This model of virtual reality as empathy machine has often come under scrutiny, with critics citing the limits of simulation to communicate the correct idea of what others want or need — for example, one 2014 study that asked participants to simulate blindness showed that participants tended to imagine what it would be like for them to suddenly become blind, rather than what it would be like to live as a blind person after a period of adaptation.

 

It’s also worth challenging our assumptions that embodying the perspective of others has the transformative powers needed to challenge systemic ills. At one point in the “empathy machine” TED Talk, Milk describes showing a VR documentary film about a Syrian refugee camp to attendees of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

 

“These are people who might not otherwise be sitting in a tent in a refugee camp in Jordan,” Milk says, referring to the summit’s roster of the world’s global and political elite. “But in January, one afternoon in Switzerland, they suddenly all found themselves there.”

 

The screen cuts to a photo of a man, dressed in a suit, wearing a virtual reality headset. He has a slight smile on his face as he looks out into an unseen horizon which we cannot share with him.

The power of this moment, this image of a presumably wealthy and influential man extending empathy toward a Syrian refugee, is enough to provoke applause from the audience. And Milk portrays the event as a success, saying that the Davos leaders were “affected” by the film.

 

But “affected” how, and towards taking what action? There is little mention of why the subjects of the film or the six million other Syrians are unable to safely inhabit their homeland, nor how it has come to pass that this particular group of wealthy people meeting in Switzerland are in a position to determine the future of entire countries — not to mention how they, in many cases, materially benefit from Syria’s destabilization. The smile could just as easily be that of a man who sees an opportunity for gain."...

 

For full post, please visit:

https://theoutline.com/post/7885/virtual-reality-empathy-machine?zd=3&zi=fbmjlg5l

No comment yet.
Scooped by Roxana Marachi, PhD
Scoop.it!

Screen Time Associated With Behavioural Problems in Preschoolers // CHILD Study

Screen Time Associated With Behavioural Problems in Preschoolers // CHILD Study | Educational Psychology & Technology: Critical Perspectives and Resources | Scoop.it

https://childstudy.ca/2019/04/17/screen-time-associated-with-behavioural-problems-in-preschoolers/ 

No comment yet.
Scooped by Roxana Marachi, PhD
Scoop.it!

Another Silicon Valley Incursion into the Schools, Another Parent Protest // Non Profit Quarterly

Another Silicon Valley Incursion into the Schools, Another Parent Protest // Non Profit Quarterly | Educational Psychology & Technology: Critical Perspectives and Resources | Scoop.it

By Skip Lockwood, April 21, 2019; New York Times

"With little data to demonstrate the effectiveness of an online learning system, the Kansas Department of Education selected two rural school systems as pilots for the Summit Learning platform. It’s not going well.

 

Summit is one of the more recent educational reform experiments to be backed by a billionaire and resisted by public school parents, who are often seen as recalcitrant blockades to bright ideas from on high. Mark Zuckerberg began to support Summit in 2014, devoting five Facebook engineers to the project, and since 2016, the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative has committed just under $100 million to the project.

 

In Kansas, where schools are struggling under Republican tax and education policies, implementing state-of-the-art, web-based, student-directed, student-paced curriculum seemed to be precisely what the towns of Wellington and McPherson needed to raise their test scores and improve their schools.

Proponents of the Summit Learning system argue it offers students more control over the content, as they can determine the speed at which they learn and when they feel comfortable taking tests. Teachers using the system do not have to administer or grade quizzes and tests, leaving them more time for personal interaction with students. The Summit Learning software provides teachers with a broad range of data about student performance, and the curriculum is continually updated.

 

The realities of web-centric learning appeared shortly after the program’s implementation. As Nellie Bowles’s article in the New York Times notes, “Students started coming home with headaches and hand cramps. Some said they felt more anxious. One child began having a recurrence of seizures. Another asked to bring her dad’s hunting earmuffs to class to block out classmates because work was now done largely alone.”

 

Web-based learning forces children to spend hours a day on computers, a requirement that dramatically exceeds the American Academy of Pediatrics Guidelines (AAP) for Electronics for School-Age Children. Obesity and sleep disturbances are the most benign of the potential problems children with too much screen-time face, according to the AAP. And screen-time’s not the only issue that concerns parents. The software collects a large amount of personal student data, building an electronic file for the duration of the student’s participation in the program. Many parents are worried that the privacy language contains too many loopholes that might eventually allow the data to be sold or misused. Privacy concerns were a primary driver for schools in Cheshire, Connecticut, to suspend the program in 2017. (We expressed our concerns about Summit back in 2016.)

 

In fact, Bowles writes, the program has been invited to leave more than one community:

 

"The resistance in Kansas is part of mounting nationwide opposition to Summit, which began trials of its system in public schools four years ago and is now in around 380 schools and used by 74,000 students. In Brooklyn, high school students walked out in November after their school started using Summit’s platform. In Indiana, Pennsylvania, after a survey by Indiana University of Pennsylvania found 70 percent of students wanted Summit dropped or made optional, the school board scaled it back and then voted this month to terminate it. And in Cheshire, Connecticut, the program was cut after protests in 2017."

 

Summit’s CEO, Diane Tavenner, started developing the software in use by the company in a series of charter schools she founded starting in 2003. Her view is that the resistance is fueled by nostalgia. “There’s people who don’t want change. They like the schools the way they are,” she says. “The same people who don’t like Summit have been the sort of vocal opposition to change throughout the process.”

 

But the truth is that, once again, the communities in Kansas resisting this change may not want to have their children be harmed by a process which is unproven.

 

"Summit chose not to be part of a study after paying the Harvard Center for Education Policy Research to design one in 2016. Tom Kane, the Harvard professor preparing that assessment, said he was wary of speaking out against Summit because many education projects receive funding from Mr. Zuckerberg and Dr. Chan’s philanthropic organization, the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative."

 

For original post, visit:

https://nonprofitquarterly.org/2019/04/26/another-silicon-valley-incursion-into-the-schools-another-parent-protest/ 

No comment yet.
Scooped by Roxana Marachi, PhD
Scoop.it!

Brooklyn Students Hold Walkout in Protest of Facebook-Designed Summit Online Program // New York Post

Brooklyn Students Hold Walkout in Protest of Facebook-Designed Summit Online Program // New York Post | Educational Psychology & Technology: Critical Perspectives and Resources | Scoop.it

By Susan Edelman

"Brooklyn teens are protesting their high school’s adoption of an online program spawned by Facebook, saying it forces them to stare at computers for hours and “teach ourselves.”

 

Nearly 100 students walked out of classes at the Secondary School for Journalism in Park Slope last week in revolt against “Summit Learning,” a web-based curriculum designed by Facebook engineers, and bankrolled by CEO Mark Zuckerberg and his wife Amy Chan.

 

“It’s annoying to just sit there staring at one screen for so long,” said freshman Mitchel Storman, 14, who spends close to five hours a day on Summit classes in algebra, biology, English, world history, and physics. “You have to teach yourself.”

 

Summit stresses “personalized learning” and “self-direction.” Students work at their own pace. Teachers “facilitate.” Each kid is supposed to get 10 to 15 minutes of one-on-one “mentoring” each week. Mitchel said his teachers sometimes give brief lessons, but then students have to work on laptops connected to the Internet.

“The distractions are very tempting,” he said. “I have seen lots of students playing games instead of working.”

 

Kids can re-take tests until they pass — and look up the answers, he added: “Students can easily cheat on quizzes since they can just copy and paste the question into Google.”

 

Two other Department of Education schools have started using Summit Learning: M.S. 88 Peter Rouget in Park Slope, and the Academy for College Preparation and Career Exploration in Flatbush.

 But the Park Slope students raised awareness of it Monday with a raucous hour-long demonstration.

 

Last summer, Summit trained 9th and 10th grade teachers, paying for four nights in a Newark, N.J, hotel plus meals.  But senior Kelly Hernandez, 17, who organized the walkout, said her Environmental Science teacher wasn’t trained, leaving kids adrift.

 

“It was bad enough that we were lost, the teachers were lost,” Kelly said. “We have done absolutely nothing in that class.”

 

Senior Akila Robinson said she couldn’t even log onto Summit for nearly two months, while other classmates can’t or won’t use it. “The whole day, all we do is sit there.”  Despite doing no work, Akila’s report card shows she received a passing 70 for the first marking period.

 

A teacher who requested anonymity said Summit glitches include system crashes, poor wifi in the old John Jay HS building, and a lack of laptops.

 

What’s worse, the teacher added, many students hate it. “It’s a lot of reading on the computer, and that’s not good for the eyes. Kids complain. Some kids refuse to do it.”

 

David Bloomfield, a Brooklyn College and CUNY Grad Center education professor, said the online system “fits the Facebook business model,” but came into city schools with little input or review.

 

“It’s educational experimentation on our kids,” he said. At a school meeting last week, SSJ parents also voiced concerns about privacy in light of recent Facebook data breaches. Summit collects a wealth of information on each student, from age, ethnicity, and extracurricular activities, to grades, test scores and disciplinary penalties. It insists the data is safe.

 

The DOE said late Saturday the school will immediately drop the Summit program in 11th and 12th grades. Administrators will ” continue to be in communication with students, staff, and parents about the new strategies over the next few weeks,” said spokeswoman Danielle Filson.

 

Officials also confirmed that another school, the Bronx Writing Academy, has already dumped the Summit program."...

 

For full post, see:

https://nypost.com/2018/11/10/brooklyn-students-hold-walkout-in-protest-of-facebook-designed-online-program/ 

 

This story is also published on NYC Public School Parents page with a link to a pdf document related to the Summit online platform

https://www.studentprivacymatters.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Summit-fact-sheet-11.12.18.pdf 

 

 

 

No comment yet.
Rescooped by Roxana Marachi, PhD from Screen Time, Tech Safety & Harm Prevention Research
Scoop.it!

American Academy of Pediatrics Issues New Recommendations On #ScreenTime and Exposure to Cell Phones // EduResearcher

American Academy of Pediatrics Issues New Recommendations On #ScreenTime and Exposure to Cell Phones // EduResearcher | Educational Psychology & Technology: Critical Perspectives and Resources | Scoop.it

"The American Academy of Pediatrics has recently issued two new sets of recommendations on media use for children.  At first glance, popular news headlines suggest elimination of the previous “no screens before age two” recommendations (see NPR’s American Academy of Pediatrics Lifts ‘No Screens Under 2’ Rule and KQED’s American Academy of Pediatrics Says Some Screen Time is Okay for Kids Under Two). However, close examination of the new guidelines reveal nuanced suggestions that maintain a primary focus on limiting tech usage. What appear to be obscured in public discussions are the same AAP organization’s recommendations issued just months earlier, specifically encouraging parents to reduce children’s exposures to cell phone radiation.

For ease of access, both sets of recommendations are provided in this post.
 

“Healthy Digital Media Use Habits for Babies, Toddlers & Preschoolers
Media in all forms, including TV, computers, and smartphones can affect how children feel, learn, think, and behave. However, parents (you) are still the most important influence.

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) encourages you to help your children develop healthy media use habits early on. Read on to learn more.”…


“What About Apps and Digital Books?

Most apps advertised as “educational” aren’t proven to be effective and they don’t encourage co-viewing or co-play that help young children learn. Also, most educational apps target rote skills, such as ABCs and shapes. These skills are only one part of school readiness. The skills young children need to learn for success in school (and life) such as impulse control, managing emotions, and creative, flexible thinking, are best learned through unstructured and social play with family and friends in the real world.

Digital books (“eBooks”) that have lots of sound and visual effects can sometimes distract children, who then “miss the story” and don’t learn as well as they would from a print book.

If you plan to read e-books to your children:

  • Choose e-books that don’t have too many “bells and whistles.”
  • Read e-books with your children (parent-child interaction around books is one of the most important factors to a child’s success at reading and literacy).

Why Limit Media Use?
Overuse of digital media may place your child at risk of:

  • Not enough sleep. Young children with more media exposure or who have a TV,computer, or mobile device in their bedrooms sleep less and fall asleep later at night. Even babies can be overstimulated by screens and miss the sleep they need to grow.
  • Delays in learning and social skills. Children who watch too much TV in infancy and preschool years can show delays in attention, thinking, language, and social skills. One of the reasons for the delays could be because they interact less with parents and family. Parents who keep the TV on or focus on their own digital media miss precious opportunities to interact with their children and help them learn. See Parents of Young Children: Put Down Your Smartphones.
  • Obesity. Heavy media use during preschool years is linked to weight gain and risk of childhood obesity. Food advertising and snacking while watching TV can promote obesity. Also, children who overuse media are less apt to be active with healthy, physical play.
  • Behavior problems. Violent content on TV and screens can contribute to behavior problems in children, either because they are scared and confused by what they see, or they try to mimic on-screen characters.

Other Tips for Parents, Families, and Caregivers

  • Do not feel pressured to introduce technology early. Media interfaces are intuitive and children can learn quickly.
  • Monitor children’s media. For example, know what apps are used or downloaded.Test apps before your child uses them, play together, and ask your child what he or she thinks about the app.
  • Turn off TVs and other devices when not in use. Background media can distract from parent-child interaction and child play, which are both very important in child language and social-emotional development.
  • Keep bedrooms, mealtimes, and parent-child playtimes screen free and unplugged for children and parents. Turn off phones or set to “do not disturb”during these times.
  • Avoid exposure to devices or screens 1 hour before bedtime. Remove devices from bedrooms before bed.
  • Avoid using media as the only way to calm your children. Although media maybe used to soothe children, such as during a medical procedure or airplane flight,using media as a strategy to calm could lead to problems with a child’s own ability with limit setting and managing emotions. Ask your child’s doctor for help if needed.
  • Develop a Family Media Use plan for you and your family.
  • Remember that your opinion counts. TV, video-game, and other media producers, and sponsors pay attention to the views of the public. Let a TV station know if you like a program, or contact video game companies if the content is too violent. For more information, visit the Federal Communications Commission(FCC) website.
  • Encourage your school and community to advocate for better media programs and for healthier habits. For example, organize a “Screen-Free Week” in your town with other parents, teachers, and neighbors.

Additional Information from HealthyChildren.org (American Academy of Pediatrics)

The related recommendations below on cell phone use were issued by the same American Academy of Pediatrics, yet appear to be receiving much less media attention.  American Academy of Pediatrics Issues New Recommendations to “Reduce Exposure to Cell Phones”: Nation’s largest group of children’s doctors responds to new government study linking cell phone radiation to cancer.

“In response to the U.S. National Toxicology Program study results finding exposure to wireless radiation significantly increased the prevalence of highly malignant heart and brain cancers in rodents, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has issued specific recommendations to reduce wireless cell phone exposure and updated their online resources for parents concerning cell phones and wireless devices.

“They’re not toys. They have radiation that is emitted from them and the more we can keep it off the body and use (the phone) in other ways, it will be safer,” said Jennifer A. Lowry, M.D., FAACT, FAAP, chair of the AAP Council on Environmental Health Executive Committee in the AAPs press release on the NTP Study Results.

“The findings of brain tumors (gliomas) and malignant schwann cell tumors of the heart in the NTP study, as well as DNA damage in brain cells, present a major public health concern because these occurred in the same types of cells that have been reported to develop into tumors in epidemiological studies of adult cell phone users,” stated Ronald L. Melnick, PhD, the National Institutes of Health toxicologist who lead the NTP study design and senior advisor to the Environmental Health Trust. “For children the cancer risks may be greater than that for adults because of greater penetration and absorption of cell phone radiation in the brains of children and because the developing nervous system of children is more susceptible to tissue-damaging agents. Based on this new information, regulatory agencies need to make strong recommendations for consumers to take precautionary measures and avoid close contact with their cell phones, and especially limit or avoid use of cell phones by children.”

The AAP has updated their Healthy Children Webpage on Cell Phones entitled Cell Phone Radiation & Children’s Health: What Parents Need to Know. The webpage reiterated children’s unique vulnerability to cell phone radiation stating, “Another problem is that the cell phone radiation test used by the FCC is based on the devices’ possible effect on large adults—not children. Children’s skulls are thinner and can absorb more radiation.”

The AAP issued the following cell phone safety tips specifically to reduce exposure to wireless radiation:

  • “Use text messaging when possible, and use cell phones in speaker mode or with the use of hands-free kits.
  • When talking on the cell phone, try holding it an inch or more away from your head.
  • Make only short or essential calls on cell phones.
  • Avoid carrying your phone against the body like in a pocket, sock, or bra. Cell phone manufacturers can’t guarantee that the amount of radiation you’re absorbing will be at a safe level.
  • Do not talk on the phone or text while driving. This increases the risk of automobile crashes.
  • Exercise caution when using a phone or texting while walking or performing other activities. “Distracted walking” injuries are also on the rise.
  • If you plan to watch a movie on your device, download it first, then switch to airplane mode while you watch in order to avoid unnecessary radiation exposure.
  • Keep an eye on your signal strength (i.e. how many bars you have). The weaker your cell signal, the harder your phone has to work and the more radiation it gives off. It’s better to wait until you have a stronger signal before using your device.
  • Avoid making calls in cars, elevators, trains, and buses. The cell phone works harder to get a signal through metal, so the power level increases.
  • Remember that cell phones are not toys or teething items.

Even though the cell phone manual contains specific instructions that say do not carry the phone next to the body, the US government does not publicize this information nor mandate companies inform the public, leaving most people unaware of potential hazards, unwittingly allowing their young children to play with them like toys,” stated Devra Davis MPH, PhD, president of the Environmental Health Trust pointing to the Berkeley Cell Phone Right To Know Ordinance being challenged in court this month.

In 2012, the AAP published Pediatric Environmental Health, 3rd Edition recommending, “exposures can be reduced by encouraging children to use text messaging when possible, make only short and essential calls on cellular phones, use hands free kits and wired headsets and maintain the cellular phone an inch or more away from the head.”

Since 2012, the AAP has supported the Federal Cell Phone Right to Know Legislation and has written letters to the FCC calling on the federal government to review and strengthen radiation standards for wireless devices in an effort to protect children’s health.

Links
AAP Healthy Children.org Cell Phone Radiation & Children’s Health: What Parents Need to Know

AAP responds to study showing link between cell phone radiation, tumors in rats May 27, 2016

2012 AAP Letter in Support of the Cell Phone Right to Know Act

2013 AAP Letter to the FCC calling for a review of RF guidelines

From: http://www.releasewire.com/press-releases/american-academy-of-pediatrics-issues-new-recommendations-to-reduce-exposure-to-cell-phones-726805.htm 

_____________________

##

 

For main post on EduResearcher, see: https://eduresearcher.com/2016/10/25/media/ 

For readers interested in additional updates and research on screen time, development, learning, and health, see here.

 

 


Via Roxana Marachi, PhD
No comment yet.
Scooped by Roxana Marachi, PhD
Scoop.it!

Public Educators Share Fallouts on Personalized Learning, Privatization and Edtech // EdSurge

Public Educators Share Fallouts on Personalized Learning, Privatization and Edtech // EdSurge | Educational Psychology & Technology: Critical Perspectives and Resources | Scoop.it

By Sydney Johnson

"Educators from around the U.S. gathered in Oakland this past weekend for the Network for Public Education’s (NPE) national conference, where several sessions centered around a common theme: protecting public education amid an era of federal budget cuts and concerns over the increased presence of technology in classrooms.

 

After an opening keynote from NPE president Diane Ravitch, the conference started with a talk Saturday morning led by Mark Miller, former president of the Pennsylvania School Boards Association; Leonie Haimson, the Executive Director of Class Size Matters; and Marla Kilfoyle, executive director of the Badass Teachers Association. The speakers all pressed that digital learning, and in particular online charter schools, are falling short for students and teachers.

 

“There has been a huge explosion of online learning and edtech in our schools… and online education is privatizing education through for-profit companies and their apps,” said Haimson. “But the reality is that online learning has not progressed really far.”

 

In particular, Haimson, who is also the co-chair Parent Coalition for Student Privacy, called attention to the “hype” around personalized learning, often described as a technology-based education model that aims to allow individual students to be able to learn at their preferred pace and instructional method. “This Orwellian phrase of ‘personalized learning’ is taking away human contact in education,” she said.

 

Personalized learning has become a particular point of passion for major philanthropists and tech executives, including Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg and Microsoft founder Bill Gates. Haimson charges that Summit Schools, a personalized learning-based charter network financially bolstered by Facebook, focuses more on screen time than actual learning of human interaction. Students and teachers using these programs, she alleges, “don’t get any personal time at all.”

 

Haimson also said many of the Summit parents she has spoken with cite issues with their child’s learning. The presentation included quotes by some of these parents, such as: “Within weeks my son started coming home from school upset and didn’t want to go to school. He said that he didn’t like being taught by a computer and sitting in front of a computer watching videos and taking notes all day. He was basically in charge of his own education at the age of 12.”

 

The speakers pointed to a 2017 study out of Stanford University’s Center for Research on Education Outcomes, which suggests that effects on both reading (-0.10) and math (-0.25) performance decreased for students in virtual charter schools regardless of what network they a part of. “Virtual charter schools don’t work for most kids,” the report reads.

 

Other studies offer "modest" optimism around technology’s role, however. A study by the RAND Corporation this year found “new evidence to suggest that customizing instruction for every student can generate modest gains in math and reading scores,” Education Week reported. The report also cited challenges for personalized learning, and warns that its popularity “far outpaces its evidence base.” But Haimson underscored there are “so many issues with the [RAND] studies,” such as how “there is no definition of personalized learning,” which the study attempts to measure.

Haimson is stark with her position on the matter: “I’m totally on the record about being against this stuff.” But she and the other speakers also said there is a time in place in which their opinions might soften. “We are not saying online learning is a bad thing—it’s good in moderation and when it’s used responsibly,” said Kilfoyle.

 

Haimson said that successful implementation often requires smaller class size, plus working with “kids who are self-motivated, easy learners and have support.” For those with less resources or support, she said “the myth [about personalized learning technology] is that it will narrow the achievement gap, but it will actually increase the achievement gaps.”

 

Later in a lunchtime keynote session, Roxana Marachi, an associate professor of education at San Jose State University, echoed some of the morning’s sentiments.  “I’m not against [all] tech. It’s the exploitation by tech that is taking data from our students and doing harm but saying it’s success.” In particular, Marachi, who studies social and emotional well-being for students and how technology affects students’ health, criticizes what she sees as the headlong dash to adopt devices and software without fully understanding their potential and limitations.

 

“There is a lack of research [on education technology]… We are putting technology in schools before we know that it's working.” In addition, she claims the most vulnerable targets are low-income areas, such as communities near her university in San Jose, which is scattered by tech-heavy charters like Rocketship Schools. “The majority of research is saying that cyber charters are tremendously problematic and are targeting low-income communities,” Marachi said. She also described one charter school proposed to open in San Jose where only two out of 21 intended edtech programs listed had been studied for effectiveness. 

 

Janelle Scott, a chancellor’s associate professor at UC Berkeley, provided additional context to their arguments during the lunchtime keynote: “[Privatization in education] is operating in a state of education disinvestment.” She stressed that “there is a reason families are choosing” alternatives like charter schools, virtual schools and technology, “even if they are not the ideal.” But Scott also pointed out that “there are people who are very happy with their charter schools,” and encouraged “a way to bring them into the critical conversations.”...

 

For original post, see: 

https://www.edsurge.com/news/2017-10-16-at-public-education-conference-educators-share-fall-outs-on-personalized-learning-privatization-and-edtech  

No comment yet.
Rescooped by Roxana Marachi, PhD from Screen Time, Tech Safety & Harm Prevention Research
Scoop.it!

"American Revolution 2.0: How Education Innovation is Going to Revitalize America and Transform the U.S. Economy" // By Global Silicon Valley (GSV Asset Management) July 4th, 2012 

Curator's note: 

Inclusion of the above report within this resource collection (downloadable by clicking title above) does not indicate endorsement of the ideas presented within it. It is included as a  root document that appears to map an extensive and intentional attack on public education (with abundant evidence of war terminology) by ed/tech firms promoted by the Global Silicon Valley Asset Management organization. A close read of the document suggest that domination of economic markets appears to the end game with plans devoid of any apparent concern for the health and/or socio-emotional development of children who would be exposed to the various software, apps, computer programs, or organizations promoting the so called revolution. A keyword search for the word "health" throughout the 332 page document indicates 16 separate instances, the majority of which involve reference to "health care", either as a sector or market. Only one quote (p. 85) is in any way related to children's health or development and is dismissive in both substance and tone. 

 

“Some will say that it’s “unhealthy” to have kids under the age of 5 learning from a computer, but children today are digital natives and technology is as natural to them as going on the swing was for the prior generation.” p. 185

 

It appears either the document's authors are not at all attuned to any research documenting health hazards of extended screen time for young children, or are well aware and choose consciously to omit such concerns from the manifesto. 

   

For more on screen time concerns, see:  http://bit.ly/screen_time 

______________________________________________________________________________

To download the full document above, click on title or arrow above or here: 
https://www.asugsvsummit.com/files/American_Revolution_2.0.pdf  

 

No comment yet.
Scooped by Roxana Marachi, PhD
Scoop.it!

American Academy of Pediatrics Issues New Recommendations On #ScreenTime and Exposure to Cell Phones // EduResearcher

American Academy of Pediatrics Issues New Recommendations On #ScreenTime and Exposure to Cell Phones // EduResearcher | Educational Psychology & Technology: Critical Perspectives and Resources | Scoop.it

"The American Academy of Pediatrics has recently issued two new sets of recommendations on media use for children.  At first glance, popular news headlines suggest elimination of the previous “no screens before age two” recommendations (see NPR’s American Academy of Pediatrics Lifts ‘No Screens Under 2’ Rule and KQED’s American Academy of Pediatrics Says Some Screen Time is Okay for Kids Under Two). However, close examination of the new guidelines reveal nuanced suggestions that maintain a primary focus on limiting tech usage. What appear to be obscured in public discussions are the same AAP organization’s recommendations issued just months earlier, specifically encouraging parents to reduce children’s exposures to cell phone radiation.

For ease of access, both sets of recommendations are provided in this post. American Academy of Pediatrics Issues New Recommendations for Children’s Media Use

“Healthy Digital Media Use Habits for Babies, Toddlers & Preschoolers
Media in all forms, including TV, computers, and smartphones can affect how children feel, learn, think, and behave. However, parents (you) are still the most important influence.

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) encourages you to help your children develop healthy media use habits early on. Read on to learn more.”…


“What About Apps and Digital Books?

Most apps advertised as “educational” aren’t proven to be effective and they don’t encourage co-viewing or co-play that help young children learn. Also, most educational apps target rote skills, such as ABCs and shapes. These skills are only one part of school readiness. The skills young children need to learn for success in school (and life) such as impulse control, managing emotions, and creative, flexible thinking, are best learned through unstructured and social play with family and friends in the real world.

Digital books (“eBooks”) that have lots of sound and visual effects can sometimes distract children, who then “miss the story” and don’t learn as well as they would from a print book.

If you plan to read e-books to your children:

  • Choose e-books that don’t have too many “bells and whistles.”
  • Read e-books with your children (parent-child interaction around books is one of the most important factors to a child’s success at reading and literacy).

Why Limit Media Use?
Overuse of digital media may place your child at risk of:

  • Not enough sleep. Young children with more media exposure or who have a TV,computer, or mobile device in their bedrooms sleep less and fall asleep later at night. Even babies can be overstimulated by screens and miss the sleep they need to grow.
  • Delays in learning and social skills. Children who watch too much TV in infancy and preschool years can show delays in attention, thinking, language, and social skills. One of the reasons for the delays could be because they interact less with parents and family. Parents who keep the TV on or focus on their own digital media miss precious opportunities to interact with their children and help them learn. See Parents of Young Children: Put Down Your Smartphones.
  • Obesity. Heavy media use during preschool years is linked to weight gain and risk of childhood obesity. Food advertising and snacking while watching TV can promote obesity. Also, children who overuse media are less apt to be active with healthy, physical play.
  • Behavior problems. Violent content on TV and screens can contribute to behavior problems in children, either because they are scared and confused by what they see, or they try to mimic on-screen characters.

Other Tips for Parents, Families, and Caregivers

  • Do not feel pressured to introduce technology early. Media interfaces are intuitive and children can learn quickly.
  • Monitor children’s media. For example, know what apps are used or downloaded.Test apps before your child uses them, play together, and ask your child what he or she thinks about the app.
  • Turn off TVs and other devices when not in use. Background media can distract from parent-child interaction and child play, which are both very important in child language and social-emotional development.
  • Keep bedrooms, mealtimes, and parent-child playtimes screen free and unplugged for children and parents. Turn off phones or set to “do not disturb”during these times.
  • Avoid exposure to devices or screens 1 hour before bedtime. Remove devices from bedrooms before bed.
  • Avoid using media as the only way to calm your children. Although media maybe used to soothe children, such as during a medical procedure or airplane flight,using media as a strategy to calm could lead to problems with a child’s own ability with limit setting and managing emotions. Ask your child’s doctor for help if needed.
  • Develop a Family Media Use plan for you and your family.
  • Remember that your opinion counts. TV, video-game, and other media producers, and sponsors pay attention to the views of the public. Let a TV station know if you like a program, or contact video game companies if the content is too violent. For more information, visit the Federal Communications Commission(FCC) website.
  • Encourage your school and community to advocate for better media programs and for healthier habits. For example, organize a “Screen-Free Week” in your town with other parents, teachers, and neighbors.

Additional Information from HealthyChildren.org (American Academy of Pediatrics)

The related recommendations below on cell phone use were issued by the same American Academy of Pediatrics, yet appear to be receiving much less media attention.  American Academy of Pediatrics Issues New Recommendations to “Reduce Exposure to Cell Phones”: Nation’s largest group of children’s doctors responds to new government study linking cell phone radiation to cancer.

“In response to the U.S. National Toxicology Program study results finding exposure to wireless radiation significantly increased the prevalence of highly malignant heart and brain cancers in rodents, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has issued specific recommendations to reduce wireless cell phone exposure and updated their online resources for parents concerning cell phones and wireless devices.

“They’re not toys. They have radiation that is emitted from them and the more we can keep it off the body and use (the phone) in other ways, it will be safer,” said Jennifer A. Lowry, M.D., FAACT, FAAP, chair of the AAP Council on Environmental Health Executive Committee in the AAPs press release on the NTP Study Results.

“The findings of brain tumors (gliomas) and malignant schwann cell tumors of the heart in the NTP study, as well as DNA damage in brain cells, present a major public health concern because these occurred in the same types of cells that have been reported to develop into tumors in epidemiological studies of adult cell phone users,” stated Ronald L. Melnick, PhD, the National Institutes of Health toxicologist who lead the NTP study design and senior advisor to the Environmental Health Trust. “For children the cancer risks may be greater than that for adults because of greater penetration and absorption of cell phone radiation in the brains of children and because the developing nervous system of children is more susceptible to tissue-damaging agents. Based on this new information, regulatory agencies need to make strong recommendations for consumers to take precautionary measures and avoid close contact with their cell phones, and especially limit or avoid use of cell phones by children.”

The AAP has updated their Healthy Children Webpage on Cell Phones entitled Cell Phone Radiation & Children’s Health: What Parents Need to Know. The webpage reiterated children’s unique vulnerability to cell phone radiation stating, “Another problem is that the cell phone radiation test used by the FCC is based on the devices’ possible effect on large adults—not children. Children’s skulls are thinner and can absorb more radiation.”

The AAP issued the following cell phone safety tips specifically to reduce exposure to wireless radiation:

  • “Use text messaging when possible, and use cell phones in speaker mode or with the use of hands-free kits.
  • When talking on the cell phone, try holding it an inch or more away from your head.
  • Make only short or essential calls on cell phones.
  • Avoid carrying your phone against the body like in a pocket, sock, or bra. Cell phone manufacturers can’t guarantee that the amount of radiation you’re absorbing will be at a safe level.
  • Do not talk on the phone or text while driving. This increases the risk of automobile crashes.
  • Exercise caution when using a phone or texting while walking or performing other activities. “Distracted walking” injuries are also on the rise.
  • If you plan to watch a movie on your device, download it first, then switch to airplane mode while you watch in order to avoid unnecessary radiation exposure.
  • Keep an eye on your signal strength (i.e. how many bars you have). The weaker your cell signal, the harder your phone has to work and the more radiation it gives off. It’s better to wait until you have a stronger signal before using your device.
  • Avoid making calls in cars, elevators, trains, and buses. The cell phone works harder to get a signal through metal, so the power level increases.
  • Remember that cell phones are not toys or teething items.

Even though the cell phone manual contains specific instructions that say do not carry the phone next to the body, the US government does not publicize this information nor mandate companies inform the public, leaving most people unaware of potential hazards, unwittingly allowing their young children to play with them like toys,” stated Devra Davis MPH, PhD, president of the Environmental Health Trust pointing to the Berkeley Cell Phone Right To Know Ordinance being challenged in court this month.

In 2012, the AAP published Pediatric Environmental Health, 3rd Edition recommending, “exposures can be reduced by encouraging children to use text messaging when possible, make only short and essential calls on cellular phones, use hands free kits and wired headsets and maintain the cellular phone an inch or more away from the head.”

Since 2012, the AAP has supported the Federal Cell Phone Right to Know Legislation and has written letters to the FCC calling on the federal government to review and strengthen radiation standards for wireless devices in an effort to protect children’s health.

Links
AAP Healthy Children.org Cell Phone Radiation & Children’s Health: What Parents Need to Know

AAP responds to study showing link between cell phone radiation, tumors in rats May 27, 2016

2012 AAP Letter in Support of the Cell Phone Right to Know Act

2013 AAP Letter to the FCC calling for a review of RF guidelines

From: http://www.releasewire.com/press-releases/american-academy-of-pediatrics-issues-new-recommendations-to-reduce-exposure-to-cell-phones-726805.htm 

_____________________

##
For readers interested in additional updates and research on screen time, development, learning, and health, see here.

 

 

No comment yet.
Scooped by Roxana Marachi, PhD
Scoop.it!

Do Reading Logs Ruin Reading? // The Atlantic

Do Reading Logs Ruin Reading? // The Atlantic | Educational Psychology & Technology: Critical Perspectives and Resources | Scoop.it

"...Rather than creating a new generation of pleasure-readers, forcing kids to keep track of their reading time can turn it into a chore."...

By Erica Reischer

"Children who read regularly for pleasure, who are avid and self-directed readers, are the holy grail for parents and educators. Reading for pleasure has considerable current and future benefits: Recreational readers tend to have higher academic achievement and greater economic success, and even display more civic-mindedness.

 

But recreational reading is on the decline. According to a National Endowment for the Arts report based on longitudinal data from a series of large, national surveys, the rate at which teens voluntarily read for pleasure has declined by 50 percent over the last 20 years. Reading now competes for children’s time with many other alluring activities, including television, social media, and video games. Most leisure time is now spent in front of a screen.

 

To ensure that kids are spending at least some time every day reading, classrooms across the country have instituted student reading logs, which typically require kids to read for a certain amount of time—about 20 minutes—each night at home and then record the book title and number of pages read. In some cases, parents must also sign this log before their child turns it in to the teacher."...

 

 

For full post, click on title above or here: http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/06/are-reading-logs-ruining-reading/485372/

 

 

No comment yet.
Scooped by Roxana Marachi, PhD
Scoop.it!

Your Paper Brain and Your Kindle Brain Aren't The Same Thing // PRI's The World

Your Paper Brain and Your Kindle Brain Aren't The Same Thing // PRI's The World | Educational Psychology & Technology: Critical Perspectives and Resources | Scoop.it

By T. J. Raphael (The Takeaway)

"Would you like paper or plasma? That's the question book lovers face now that e-reading has gone mainstream. And, as it turns out, our brains process digital reading very differently.


Manoush Zomorodi, managing editor and host of WNYC's New Tech City, recalls a conversation with the Washington Post's Mike Rosenwald, who's researched the effects of reading on a screen. “He found, like I did, that when he sat down to read a book his brain was jumping around on the page. He was skimming and he couldn’t just settle down. He was treating a book like he was treating his Twitter feed," she says.
 

Neuroscience, in fact, has revealed that humans use different parts of the brain when reading from a piece of paper or from a screen. So the more you read on screens, the more your mind shifts towards "non-linear" reading — a practice that involves things like skimming a screen or having your eyes dart around a web page. 
 

“They call it a ‘bi-literate’ brain,” Zoromodi says. “The problem is that many of us have adapted to reading online just too well. And if you don’t use the deep reading part of your brain, you lose the deep reading part of your brain.”
 

So what's deep reading? It's the concentrated kind we do when we want to "immerse ourselves in a novel or read a mortgage document,” Zoromodi says. And that uses the kind of long-established linear reading you don't typically do on a computer. “Dense text that we really want to understand requires deep reading, and on the internet we don’t do that.”
 

Linear reading and digital distractions have caught the attention of academics like Maryanne Wolf, director of the Center for Reading and Language Research at Tufts University.
 

“I don’t worry that we’ll become dumb because of the Internet,” Wolf says, "but I worry we will not use our most preciously acquired deep reading processes because we’re just given too much stimulation. That’s, I think, the nub of the problem.”
 

To keep the deep reading part of the brain alive and kicking, Zomorodi says that researchers like Wolf recommend setting aside some time each day to deep read on paper.


And now that children are seemingly growing up with a digital screen in each hand, Wolf says it’s also important that teachers and parents make sure kids are taking some time away from scattered reading. Adults need to ensure that children also practice the deeper, slow reading that we associate with books on paper.
 

“I think the evidence someday will be able to show us that what we’re after is a discerning ‘bi-literate’ brain,” Wolf says. “That’s going to take some wisdom on our part.”
 

UPDATE 9/22/14: Many of you have asked about the original research in this article. Here are a few resources: Wolf explained her research in an essay for Nieman Reports. Ziming Liu at San Jose State University found that when we read on screens we spend more time browsing and scanning, performing "non-linear reading." For an even deeper read, here's Liu's 2008 book on the subject. Anne Mangen at the University of Norway found that readers retain plot elements better when they read in print instead of on a Kindle. But a study in PLOS found that reading e-ink is a lot like reading on paper in terms of visual fatigue.
 

This story originally aired on PRI's The Takeaway, a public radio program that invites you to be part of the American conversation.


For full post, click on title above or here: 

http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-09-18/your-paper-brain-and-your-kindle-brain-arent-same-thing 

No comment yet.
Rescooped by Roxana Marachi, PhD from "Testing, Testing, 1, 2, 3..."
Scoop.it!

Screen Time, Wireless, and EMF Research // http://bit.ly/screen_time

Screen Time, Wireless, and EMF Research // http://bit.ly/screen_time | Educational Psychology & Technology: Critical Perspectives and Resources | Scoop.it

"This collection includes research, updates, and resources related to EMF/RF Radiation and screen time.  For an excellent website with extensive documents for safe technology advocacy, please visit the National Association for Children and Safe Technology at http://nacst.org. For additional resources and updates in Education, please visit http://eduresearcher.com.' 

 

http://bit.ly/screen_time  

No comment yet.