Activity 8 of the course LRNT523, Foundations of Learning and Technologies, at Royal Roads University asked students to read articles by Etchells et al. (2017) and Paul Kirschner (2017). Next, we were to answer certain questions about these articles.
Both articles argue that evidence-based practice is important. Etchells et al. (2017) argues that there is currently no solid evidence that the amount of time children use screens on electronic devices is harmful. This is often called screen time and, according to Etchells et al. (2017), is not a clearly defined term. Etchells et al. (2017) states that screen time is valuable for children growing up in this digital age, and limiting screen time may have an overall negative effect on children, prompting the need for more research. I strongly agree with Etchells et al. (2017), and also think that writing articles about limiting screen time when there is no evidence to support a need to limit screen time suggests to people that screen time is harmful and will likely lead people to believe that screen time is harmful, despite the absence of evidence. If a significant culmination of future evidence supports the idea that screen time is beneficial, ideas of it being harmful will likely persist and have an ongoing negative effect. I often find myself frustrated with articles or policy that are not evidence based. I believe this to be a huge problem in the health industry where it has led to many non-evidence based policies that have stuck with us for decades and caused, what I believe to be, tremendous harm. Kirschner (2017) argues that we need to stop propagating the learning styles myth. When learning styles was more popular, some instructors likely dedicated significant resources to designing their instruction with learning styles in mind. These resources could have been used to improve learning in meaningful ways, and this is another example of the damage that can be caused by following myths. I think these arguments from Etchells et al. (2017) and Kirschner (2017) are being put forward because evidence-based practice is important for the betterment of humanity.
Etchells, P., et al. (January 6, 2017). Screen Time Guidelines should be built on evidence, not hype. The Guardian.
Kirschner, P. (2017). Stop propagating the learning styles myth. Computers & Education, 106, 166-171.
Hi Laura!
I like that you have summarised the articles together and highlighted the key point in both articles, the requirement to use research when making findings.
I found it interesting that although Kirschner (2017) seems to be arguing that there is enough evidence for people to stop using learning styles, Etchells et al. (2017) argues that additional research is required. In fact, Etchells et al. (2017) does not seem to acknowledge any findings (even when he links to articles containing them). As I was reading this, I wondered if researchers are concerned with the possibility of a conflict of interest when they recommend additional research? I am not saying that in this case additional research is not justified, but I am just wondering surrounding the ethical issue of recommending more work for yourself. What do you think?
Lorri
Hi Lorri,
I’m Jason, not Laura 🙂
The idea of learning styles goes back to the 1970s. There is a large amount of evidence debunking it. Modern tablets and phones have only been around for about 10 years, so there hasn’t been much time to gather evidence on the effects of screen time on children, especially any potential long-term effects. With so little research on this topic, it seems reasonable to me to ask for more research. The best way to counter Etchells et al.’s argument might be to do a meta-analysis, but I don’t think the research is there to support a meta-analysis.