Alien Registration- Radesky, Condrat (Augusta, Kennebec County)

https://digitalmaine.com/alien_docs/18723/thumbnail.jp

Mobile device use when caring for children 0-5 years: A naturalistic playground study

Issue addressed: Over the past decade, mobile device use has increased significantly. Adults are now using their mobile device whilst undertaking a range of work and social activities. This naturalistic study aimed to understand parents/carers' use of mobile devices and their associated beliefs about mobile device use whilst caring for children aged five and younger in playgrounds. Methods: A mixed methods approach was used to collect quantitative and qualitative data from parents/carers. Data were collected by observations (n = 50) and interviews (n = 25) in playgrounds on the North Coast of New South Wales, Australia. Results: Of the 50 observed parents/carers, 76% (n = 38) used their mobile device, with usage time extending to 17.2 minutes of the 20 minute observation period. Text-/type-related mobile device use was most often used (69.6%), followed by voice-related (23.7%) and camera-related mobile device use (6.7%). The 25 interviewed parents/carers beliefs on mobile device use were centred on three themes: diversity of mobile device use, child relationships and mobile device use and the physical environment and mobile device use. Conclusion: This study adds to the limited research into parent/carer mobile device use, which has become an integral part of peoples' lifestyle. However, research is required to better understand how parent/carer mobile device use may impact on child supervision and interaction. So what?: Mobile device use is increasing. We need to better understand its public health impact

What differences can digital design make for children?: Sonia Livingstone and Kruakae Pothong interview with Jenny Radesky

What is the potential, and the problem, with digital design? How can we make digital design more compatible with children’s evolving capacities? In search of answers, Sonia Livingstone and Kruakae Pothong talk to Jenny Radesky about digital design and its implications for children’s development

Technoference: Parent Distraction With Technology and Associations With Child Behavior Problems

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/141477/1/cdev12822.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/141477/2/cdev12822_am.pd

Advancing the understanding of children's digital engagement: responsive methodologies and ethical considerations in psychological research

Children’s perspectives and experiences with digital media (digital engagement for short) are becoming difficult to observe and measure in today’s highly multi-faceted, personalized and dynamic media ecosystem. In response, psychologists are developing a host of innovative methods. These may be broadly divided into those which prioritize children’s active participation in research and those which develop techniques for passive observation. This article presents a state-of-the-art review of emerging methodologies to highlight the ethical issues that arise, by drawing on the Belmont principles for ethical research. We identify strengths and weaknesses of both participatory and non-participatory methods and recommend ways for future research to harness the potential of child-centered, responsive, and ethical methods

The 30 Million–Word Gap Relevance for Pediatrics

As many as 40% to 50% of the children pediatric clinicians serve are growing up in low-income households. Among the myriad physical and mental health sequelae of early adversity and toxic stress, language development appears to be one area particularly vulnerable to the stressors associated with poverty. The effects of poverty on language development have been documented in children as young as 9 months, becoming more clinically evident by 24 months.1 The consequences of early adversity–related language delays may be profound, leading to later learning delays, school failure, and lifelong social and economic consequences.2 This income-related gap in children’s language development has been linked in numerous studies to the quantity and quality of language input children receive from their parents, family members, and caregivers. Hart and Risley3 carried out the landmark study documenting this influence of children’s early environments on their later vocabulary growth. They observed that young children from low-income families heard approximately 600 words per hour compared with 2100 words per hour for children from high-income families. Extrapolating from this hourly discrepancy data, they estimated that by the time children reached age 4 years, those from higher-income families were likely to have heard roughly 30 million more words than low-income children. In addition, lower-income parents have been observed to use fewer complex sentences and rare vocabulary words, ask fewer questions of children, and use more prohibitives and directives—language that tells children what to do and not do—rather than pose comments that might elicit conversation. This qualitative and quantitative difference in language exposure, the “word gap,” is significant in that it often leads to later disparities in children’s academic achievement via effects not only on language development2 but also on cognitive processing1 and building self-regulation skills.4 Numerous community-based interventions have been shown to be effective in improving children’s language learning environments and outcomes.5 Some of the largest-scale endeavors include Providence Talks (a program in which low-income families with young children in Providence, Rhode Island, are given audio-recording technology that provides feedback about how many words their children hear every day), Georgia’s Talk to Me Baby program, and the Talking Is Teaching initiative of Too Small to Fail. However, some recent commentators have criticized the emphasis placed on word gap initiatives, with opposition to the “simplistic” approach of focusing on number of words spoken as a solution to poverty’s health effects as well as concern for implicit bias in the way researchers describe low-income and minority parenting.6 We argue that emphasis on the word gap in pediatric practice is not only appropriate but also a valuable tool for partnering with families and teaching trainees

Exploring Camp Policies and Leadership Opinions on Digital Media Use in Camps

While summer camps provide children a unique experience away from home, this environment may lead to increased and unsupervised use of digital media. Camps’ policies and leaderships’ views on digital media consumption in camps are currently unknown. To elucidate current trends, we partnered with CampDoc.com to survey a national sample of camp leadership about digital media policies and practices. A single response was selected from each camp and analyzed using descriptive statistics. Free text responses reflecting on positive and negative experiences with digital media were assessed using thematic analysis. We received 722 responses from 363 of the 950 camps within the Camp Doc network. Respondents represented camps in 45 states in the United States. Internet and cell service were available in 22.3% and 34.7% of camps, respectively. Approximately 60% of camps reported a digital media policy for campers and staff. Most policies (67.9%) did not allow use of digital media devices. Camp leadership reported that smartphones (51.3%) and social media apps (42.2%) were most difficult to restrict. Qualitative themes focused on the benefits of digital media for creativity and connection, but also the interruption of camp experiences. Camp personnel described positive media uses aligned with American Academy of Pediatrics media guidelines, for teaching creativity, acquiring new skills, and understanding the value of unplugging for creating social connections. Although most camps have policies restricting digital media use, complete restriction may be difficult