I have generated several posts making the argument that the use of ad blockers ignores the desires of those making the effort to generate content. I recognize that the use of pop-ups and multiple banner ads on a page can be obnoxious, but the solution is to avoid this content. Avoidance allows the author to offer content as he/she desires and prevents you from experiencing content in a framework you find annoying.
Anyway, I do use Google ad links. These links are minimally intrusive. An issue with ad blockers is that most block everything whether the ad content is actually intrusive or not. I have been interested more as a matter of principle than income. My use of ads makes only a minimal dent in the cost to me of renting server space.
I have been tracking the percentage of viewers who examine content on this site and block the ad that appears in the left-hand column. Here is graphical summary from the past month. The red section represents the use of an ad blocker.
Watching my kids raise their kids is interesting. I am a psychologist with some expertise in the area of adolescence, but I can’t say that my approach as a parent was that planned. I guess I would describe my approach as be supportive, be aware, and try help when problems develop. Perhaps my wife was more prescriptive, but I don’t think so. We wanted our kids to do well and be well rounded, but beyond sharing expectations we required few specific choices. Again, what I describe is my impression and not necessarily the impression of all involved.
Screen time is one of those issues that seems new to me. I do not think we had household rules regarding screen time. My kids missed out on several technologies we now take for granted. Internet activities were not part of their experience. We had two phone lines (no cell phones), but this abundance was allowed so we could use the “teen line” for a phone modem. Disputes were related to who had priority on the second line, but not how much time was allowed. What I don’t think we had were rules regarding how much television viewing time was allowed.
My own children as parents vary in their expectations but they do talk about screen time. Of course, we gave our grandchildren iPads so we have played a role in shaping the environment that must be addressed. Specific time limits do come up and I sometimes hear reference to a specific number – you can have 30 minutes of iPad time and then you need to do something else.
Our kids get these numbers from somewhere. All are well educated and with their spouses seek out information on parenting. One influential source of such information has been American Academy of Pediatrics. I must admit a bias here. As a psychologist, I am always surprised when folks from the medical profession weigh in on topics such as child rearing, bullying, etc. My major professor (a WWII military veteran) refused to refer to MDs as doctors. He always called them medics. The preparation of PhDs was different with far more time focused on doing and reading research without a biological connection. I admit to a certain ignorance regarding the preparation of medical professionals (our two daughters are in the field), but I do know how much course work and field experience goes into the preparation of clinical or developmental PhD psychologists.
Anyway, the AAP had a rather absolutist position on screen time – nothing before 2 and then up to two hours by adolescence. Simple rules are easy to follow so I understand the impact on parents seeking simple guidelines. Of course, the world is far more complicated and everyone should have considered that screen time can mean very different things. Unless there was specific evidence that focusing one’s attention on a light emitting surface did neurological damage, what is viewed and heard can now expose the viewer to such a wide range of experiences with varying consequences. Some can be interactive. Many can be educational. Some can be damaging.
AAP has released a new report (there is an executive summary if you do not want to read the entire document) with specific suggestions and a more nuanced position. The recommendations require judgment on the part of parents, but the ideas seem pretty much what I would regard as common sense. The real issue here may be getting parents to forget what they were told previously.
Perhaps if I explain screen time as similar to food consumption the medics may understand. Some is good and necessary. Different inputs have different consequences. It is possible that too much of anything can reach the point of causing problems, but how much this amount is will be determined by many factors.
If you are concerned that tablets provide learners an inferior reading experience you might be interested in this Educause article. The article outlines a study conducted at the Coast Guard Academy, but also offers an introduction that reviews the existing literature on the topic.
I regard this as a multi-level question. There is the question of reading behaviors as they might exist in the “real world”. There is also the question of reading under controlled circumstances. Reading in the real world involves additional factors that go beyond the basic question of whether comprehension is influenced by whether text is accessed from paper or a tablet. In the real world, it appears that factors such as attractive distractions or display format may impact the reading experience. These issues have practical significance, but can be potentially addressed via technological means. For example, the larger IPad pro will allow more complex page presentations. The reason Kindle text is unadorned is partly to control cost. Access to other apps on an iPad can presently be controlled if distraction is an issue. Tools for deep reading (highlighting, navigation, etc.) will improve.
The bare bones comparison of reading from different displays seems quite different. I can think of no reason I would expect the display type to make a difference, but I guess this is an empirical question. The study reported in this article describes an experiment (and references others) addressing this basic question. The study found no treatment differences (but also reached what I thought were strange conclusions related to the pattern of scores associated with each treatment). The pattern finding and interpretation seem a bit of a stretch. The author suggests that paper may be suited to more capable learners. The data on which this proposal is made would also then encourage the conclusion that more average learners should use tablets.
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.Ok
You must be logged in to post a comment.