Megan Barker 4/7/19
Bio 10H C Odd Current Event 8
Association for Psychological Science. "Screen time -- even before bed -- has little impact on
teen well-being." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 5 April 2019. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/04/190405080922.htm>.
In the article “Screen time -- even before bed -- has little impact on teen well-being,” the author explains a new study which explains that technology usage, even before bed, has almost no impact on adolescents, contrary to popular belief. The article began with quotes from Amy Orben, a Researcher at the Oxford Internet Institute (OII) and College Lecturer at the Queen's College, University of Oxford, who worked on the study. These quotes described the findings of the study, and how the findings go against what people once thought. The author then goes on to describe how the study worked. They describe three sections of the study; how researchers found how long adolescents spent on screens, how they then examined their psychological functioning, depression symptoms, self-esteem, and mood, and how “the researchers publicly documented the analyses they would run before they analyzed the data” (ScienceDaily). The article then described how it was important to be completely transparent with the data of such a controversial study. They discuss how the UK government’s White Paper on Online Harms legislation compares with the data found in the study. Then, the author describes how data was used from Ireland, the UK, and the US, and how much data was used from each place.
This article was very relevant to society today. Teens spend so much of their time on screens, whether in school, doing homework, or relaxing. The fact that there is probably no correlation between screen time and well-being is probably relieving to most adolescents. Additionally, many adults blame the increasing rates of teen anxiety and depression, but this study suggests that there are other explanations.
There are many good aspects to this article, although there could be some improvements made to it, as well. For example, the article is thorough. It explains the study, how it was conducted, who was surveyed, and its impacts and importance. However, the article was also repetitive. For example, it stated that teens from Ireland, the UK, and the US were surveyed in two different paragraphs. It also could have been structured better; it was somewhat illogical to write about the participators of the study after writing about the study, what it found, and its importance. If the author were to move the last paragraph, which explained where the data came from, and put it before the paragraph which explained how the data was analyzed, both issues would be fixed. There would be no need to repeat the sentence about where the teens that provided data for the study lived, and the article would be structured logically. The article “Screen time -- even before bed -- has little impact on teen well-being”, although there were a few slight issues in its structure and repetition, a great article, as it was relevant to society and very thorough.
Tenzing Pixley
ReplyDeleteCore Biology C ODD
Current Event 9 Comment
Monday, April 22nd, 2019
Barker, Megan. “Current Event 8.” Current Event 8, 1 Jan. 1970,
bhscorebio.blogspot.com/2019/04/current-event-8.html#comment-form.
In Megan's review of the article Screen time -- even before bed -- has little impact on teen well-being by the Association for Psychological Science, she goes over the many strengths and weaknesses of the former. One part I liked was when she wrote, “The author then goes on to describe how the study worked. They describe three sections of the study; how researchers found how long adolescents spent on screens, how they then examined their psychological functioning, depression symptoms, self-esteem, and mood, and how “the researchers publicly documented the analyses they would run before they analyzed the data” (ScienceDaily).” By noting how the study took place, it shows thoroughness and methodical analyzation of the article. Also, by quoting the piece, it conveys that you aren’t just skimming over the material, rather taking note of the important details, henceforth being methodical. Another part I enjoyed reading was when you wrote that “This article was very relevant to society today. Teens spend so much of their time on screens, whether in school, doing homework, or relaxing. The fact that there is probably no correlation between screen time and well-being is probably relieving to most adolescents.” This gives your review a unique ‘voice’ per se, as you are including a bit of personal information to pair with the analysis of what you read.
One aspect you could’ve worked on was giving more personal insight. It made the second paragraph all the more interesting than the first as you simply weren’t just quoting the article, but actually providing a unique opinion. This could’ve been used more often to give your review a more personal touch. A minor quip I had was that in the first paragraph, you could’ve spent more time analyzing the quotes.
All in all, I found your review of the article to be not only insightful, but personal as you both analyzed the article and provided a unique perspective on the topic at hand. Because of this, I learned about how the myth that screen time before bed, which I also believed in, was proven false and has little to no scientific merit. This initially came as a shock to me but as I read on, I started to understand more about the topic.