Erika Squires, Wayne State University and Lucy (Kathleen) McGoron, Wayne State University Screen time permeates the lives of toddlers and preschoolers. For many young children, their exposure includes both direct viewing, such as watching a TV show, and indirect viewing, such as when media is on in the background during other daily activities. As many parents will know, research points to several negative effects of screen time. As scholars who specialize in speech pathology and early childhood development, we are particularly interested in the recent finding that too much screen time is associated with less parent-child talk, such as fewer conversational turns between parents and children. As a result, the American Academy of Pediatrics and World Health Organization suggest limiting screen time for children. Beyond quantity, they also emphasize the quality of a child’s engagement with digital media. Used in moderation, certain kinds of media can have educational and social benefits for children – and even contribute to language development. These tips may help parents structure and manage screen time more effectively.

No. 1: Choose high-quality content

Parents can enhance their children’s screen-time value by choosing high-quality media – that is, content with educational benefit. PBS Kids has many popular shows, from “Nature Cat” to “Sid the Science Kid,” that would qualify as educational. Two other elements contribute to the quality of screen time. First, screen content should be age-appropriate – that is, parents should choose shows, apps and games that are specifically designed for young children. Using a resource such as Common Sense Media allows parents to check recommended ages for television shows, movies and apps. Second, parents can look for shows that use evidence-based educational techniques, such as participatory cues. That’s when characters in shows break the “fourth wall” by directly talking to their young audience to prompt reflection, action or response. Research shows that children learn new words better when a show has participatory cues – perhaps because it encourages active engagement rather than passive viewing. Many classic, high-quality television shows for young children feature participatory cues, including “Mickey Mouse Clubhouse,” “Dora the Explorer,” “Go Diego Go!” and “Daniel Tiger’s Neighborhood.”

No. 2: Join in on screen time

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that parents and children watch media together whenever possible.

This recommendation is based on the evidence that increased screen media use can reduce parent-child conversation. This, in turn, can affect language development. Intentionally discussing media content with children increases language exposure during screen time. Parents may find the following joint media engagement strategies useful:

• Press pause and ask questions.
• Point out basic concepts, such as letters and colors.
• Model more advanced language using a “think aloud” approach, such as, “That surprised me! I wonder what will happen next?”

No. 3: Connect what’s on screen to real life

Learning from media is challenging for young children because their brains struggle to transfer information and ideas from screens to the real world. Children learn more from screen media, research shows, when the content connects to their real-life experiences. To maximize the benefits of screen time, parents can help children connect what they are viewing with experiences they’ve had. For example, while watching content together, a parent might say, “They’re going to the zoo. Do you remember what we saw when we went to the zoo?” This approach promotes language development and cognitive skills, including attention and memory. Children learn better with repeated exposure to words, so selecting media that relates to a child’s real-life experiences can help reinforce new vocabulary.

No. 4: Enjoy screen-free times

Ensuring that a child’s day is filled with varied experiences, including periods that don’t involve screens, increases language exposure in children’s daily routines. Two ideal screen-free times are mealtimes and bedtime. Mealtimes present opportunities for back-and-forth conversation with children, exposing them to a lot of language. Additionally, bedtime should be screen-free, as using screens near bedtime or having a TV in children’s bedrooms disrupts sleep. Alternatively, devoting bedtime to reading children’s books accomplishes the dual goals of helping children wind down and creating a language-rich routine. Having additional screen-free, one-on-one, parent-child play for at least 10 minutes at some other point in the day is good for young children. Parents can maximize the benefits of one-on-one play by letting their children decide what and how to play.

A parent’s role here is to follow their child’s lead, play along, give their child their full attention – so no phones for mom or dad, either – and provide language enrichment. They can do this by labeling toys, pointing out shapes, colors and sizes. It can also be done by describing activities – “You’re rolling the car across the floor” – and responding when their child speaks. Parent-child playtime is also a great opportunity to extend interests from screen time. Including toys of your child’s favorite characters from the shows or movies they love in playtime transforms that enjoyment from screen time into learning. Erika Squires, Assistant Professor, Wayne State University and Lucy (Kathleen) McGoron, Assistant Professor of Child and Family Development, Wayne State University This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Lightning Jay, Binghamton University, State University of New York Can you tell fact from fiction online? In a digital world, few questions are more important or more challenging. For years, some commentators have called for K-12 teachers to take on fake news, media literacy, or online misinformation by doubling down on critical thinking. This push for schools to do a better job preparing young people to differentiate between low- and high-quality information often focuses on social studies classes. As an education researcher and former high school history teacher, I know that there’s both good and bad news about combating misinformation in the classroom. History class can cultivate critical thinking – but only if teachers and schools understand what critical thinking really means.

Not just a ‘skill’

First, the bad news. When people demand that schools teach critical thinking, it’s not always clear what they mean. Some might consider critical thinking a trait or capacity that teachers can encourage, like creativity or grit. They could believe that critical thinking is a mindset: a habit of being curious, skeptical and reflective. Or they might be referring to specific skills – for instance, that students should learn a set of steps to take to assess information online. Unfortunately, cognitive science research has shown that critical thinking is not an abstract quality or practice that can be developed on its own. Cognitive scientists see critical thinking as a specific kind of reasoning that involves problem-solving and making sound judgments. It can be learned, but it relies on specific content knowledge and does not necessarily transfer between fields. Early studies on chess players and physicists in the 1970s and ’80s helped show how the kind of flexible and reflective cognition often called critical thinking is really a product of expertise. Chess masters, for instance, do not start out with innate talent. In most cases, they gain expertise by hours of thoughtfully playing the game. This deliberate practice helps them recognize patterns and think in novel ways about chess. Chess masters’ critical thinking is a product of learning, not a precursor.

Because critical thinking develops in specific contexts, it does not necessarily transfer to other types of problem-solving. For example, chess advocates might hope the game improves players’ intelligence, and studies do suggest learning chess may help elementary students with the kind of pattern recognition they need for early math lessons. However, research has found that being a great chess player does not make people better at other kinds of complex critical thinking.

Historical thinking

Since context is key to critical thinking, learning to analyze information about current events likely requires knowledge about politics and history, as well as practice at scrutinizing sources. Fortunately, that is what social studies classes are for. Social studies researchers often describe this kind of critical thinking as “historical thinking”: a way to evaluate evidence about the past and assess its reliability. My own research has shown that high school students can make relatively quick progress on some of the surface features of historical thinking, such as learning to check a text’s date and author. But the deep questioning involved in true historical thinking is much harder to learn. Social studies classrooms can also build what researchers call “civic online reasoning.” Fact-checking is complex work. It is not enough to tell young people that they should be wary online, or to trust sites that end in “.org” instead of “.com.” Rather than learning general principles about online media, civic online reasoning teaches students specific skills for evaluating information about politics and social issues. Still, learning to think like a historian does not necessarily prepare someone to be a skeptical news consumer. Indeed, a recent study found that professional historians performed worse than professional fact-checkers at identifying online misinformation. The misinformation tasks the historians struggled with focused on issues such as bullying or the minimum wage – areas where they possessed little expertise.

Powerful knowledge

That’s where background knowledge comes in – and the good news is that social studies can build it. All literacy relies on what readers already know. For people wading through political information and news, knowledge about history and civics is like a key in the ignition for their analytical skills. Readers without much historical knowledge may miss clues that something isn’t right – signs that they need to scrutinize the source more closely. Political misinformation often weaponizes historical falsehoods, such as the debunked and recalled Christian nationalist book claiming that Thomas Jefferson did not believe in a separation of church and state, or claims that the nadir of African American life came during Reconstruction, not slavery. Those claims are extreme, but politicians and policymakers repeat them. For someone who knows basic facts about American history, those claims won’t sit right. Background knowledge will trigger their skepticism and kick critical thinking into gear.

Past, present, future

For this reason, the best approach to media literacy will come through teaching that fosters concrete skills alongside historical knowledge. In short, the new knowledge crisis points to the importance of the traditional social studies classroom. But it’s a tenuous moment for history education. The Bush- and Obama-era emphasis on math and English testing resulted in decreased instructional time in history classes, particularly in elementary and middle schools. In one 2005 study, 27% of schools reported reducing social studies time in favor of subjects on state exams. Now, history teachers are feeling heat from politically motivated culture wars over education that target teaching about racism and LGBTQ+ issues and that ban books from libraries and classrooms. Two-thirds of instructors say that they’ve limited classroom discussions about social and political topics. Attempts to limit students’ knowledge about the past imperil their chances of being able to think critically about new information. These attacks are not just assaults on the history of the country; they are attempts to control its future. Lightning Jay, Assistant Professor of Teaching, Learning and Educational Leadership, Binghamton University, State University of New York This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.