October 2019 – Lisa's Blog

The Screen Time Conundrum

The multi- author open letter to The Guardian in January of 2017 illuminates one of the biggest current questions in parenting in our culture: how much screen time is too much?

The authors main arguments are that policy discussions should be had based on an understanding of the topic from an empirical standpoint – informed by research and experience rather than pseudo-science and opinion. Policy development around screen time should take into consideration context of screen use and content. An understanding of children’s health and wellbeing is complex, “affected by many other factors, such as socioeconomic status, relational poverty, and family environment” (Etchelles et al. 2017). Policy makers need to have an awareness of the difference between correlative and causal data – that time spent in outdoor play and time spent on screens is not necessarily a directly connected set of points, but rather more complex. Really, ultimately that guidelines for parents should be built on evidence.

The authors are putting forth these arguments out of concern that parents will not understand the nuances of what defines ‘screen time’ and that there will be an implementation of unnecessary, ineffective or even potentially harmful policies. Recognizing that screens are a part of life for children, policies affecting families should be guided by evidence.

Initially, I felt that this article supports my beliefs, but through more deliberation, reading it helped me recognize that I do hold a certain amount of bias. The advent of possible unrestricted screen use came about when my oldest was 11, with an iPod Touch. As a parent, I always worked to ensure that things were balanced for my children, and that I was aware of what they were consuming through screens. For our household it was always about balance in all things, including time playing video games, watching TV/other programming, playing sports, time with family and friends, and schoolwork. I hadn’t looked at empirical evidence around screen use in those parenting years but did what I usually did in the absence of evidence: look for moderation.

As I’ve been involved in the K – 12 school system, I’ve been witness to families that do not restrict screen time or content and seen that those children do not necessarily form healthy friendships or good relationships with the adults in their world. Being in the school context, it was clear that screen time was not the only factor in those situations but was a contributing factor children’s struggles in the school community.

This work leads me to pay attention to the reasons why I might think what I do, and to re-evaluate how I think about this topic. Projecting into possibility the idea that someone might present me with pro- unrestricted screen time evidence makes me uncomfortable. The article allowed me to recognize that I have a certain amount of bias in this, and that I’ve thought of screens as a bit of a ‘necessary evil’ in many ways, one that our children will have to navigate and find balanced and healthy relationships with.

Reference

Etchells et al. (2017, January 6). Screen time guidelines need to be built on evidence, not hype. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/science/head-quarters/2017/jan/06/screen-time-guidelines-need-to-be-built-on-evidence-not-hype

Rise of Cartoon Use in Education

This synthesis paper looks at the origins and rise of instructional cartoons with a concentration on early 20^th Century and expansion of use through WWII. This paper is limited to animated films in North America, exploring the chronology, military and non-military studio involvement.

Winsor McCay is attributed with releasing the first commercial, non-fiction, animated film, The Sinking of the Lusitania in 1918 (Roe, 2009, p. 42). It is a “passionate and journalistically convincing re-telling of an event that had never been photographed” (DelGaudio, 1997, p. 190). Shown in theatres, it is the earliest known animated documentary intended to teach about a historical event.

Max Fleischer, inventor of the rotoscope in 1915, became involved with Bray while looking to distribute his first film. He remained with Bray until opening Out of the Inkwell Films Inc. in 1921 with his brother, Dave (Langer, 1975, p.48).

It is during his time with Bray that Max Fleischer animated what are thought to be the first fully animated instructional films, How to Read an Army Map, and How to Fire a Lewis Gun (1917) (Langer 1975, p.49). Fleischer made animated training films at Bray covering hundreds of different subjects training American soldiers on their way to Europe (Roe, 2009, p.43) prior to Armistice.

Once their own studio was established and following in the tradition of The Sinking of the Lusitania, the Fleischer brothers started exploring other themes. They created their first feature-length film using animation interspersed with title cards, The Einstein Theory of Relativity (1923). Following this success, they made Evolution in 1925 (Langer, 1975, p. 49). It is serious films like these that showed the scope of animation for illustrating events no camera can see (DeGaudio, p. 190)

Instructional animation became widely used during WWII due to US government investment. The Office of War Information established a film branch, the Bureau of Motion Pictures, intended for training films and propaganda to be produced by the Signal Corps’ Army Pictorial Service. The Signal Corps had studios in New York, New Jersey and Ohio (Birdwell, 2005, p. 204), and on the old Fox studio (Fort Fox) in Hollywood, California (Nel, 2007, para. 3). While non-military instructional animations were being made in civilian studios, many of those same studios were commissioned to make films for the US military.

In 1941, after the attack on Pearl Harbour, the US government gave Walt Disney his first American commission: to make 20 training films for the Navy on identifying aircraft and warships. Thousands of men were enrolling in the army and the US government needed a way to train large numbers of men efficiently and quickly to act as a unit. (Birdwell, 2005, p.203). Troops were not well educated; many were not literate. Use of simple language and entertaining films got their messages across (Nel 2007). By 1943, 94% of Disney’s output was making films for the government and military (Roe, 2009, p. 44)

Victory through Air Power, based on Major Alexander P. Seversky’s book and self-funded by Disney, demonstrated the ability of an animation to influence. Created in 1943, it was intended to persuade the US Military that they should be using long-range bombers to gain strategic advantage in the war. The film was a huge critical success, gaining the attention of Winston Churchill who recommended it to Roosevelt, who then subsequently adopted long-range bombing. With this, the US government realized the power of animation to sway audience opinion (Roe, 2009, p.52).

In 1943 Major Frank Capra (director of the Why We Fight films) proposed the Army-Navy Screen Magazine, a 20-minute variety piece to be produced twice a month consisting of training, newsreels, propaganda and entertainment (Birdwell, 2005). Because the variety shows were only going to be shown to soldiers (without civilian distribution), the films avoided the Motion Picture Industry’s censorship arm, the Production Code Administration (PCA), allowing the Army-Navy Screen Magazine to appeal broadly to the primarily male, Christian, generally white audience of soldiers with racy, rude, political films (Birdwell, 2005).

Training films of the time (non-animated) were purported to be boring (Birdwell, 2005). Capra approached Warner Brothers to ask about making short cartoon training films. Leon Schlesinger, producer of Merrie Melodies and Loony Tunes put together five units. Each had their own style and feel, and each led by one of Fred ‘Tex’ Avery, Isodore ‘Fritz’ Freleng, Frank Tashlin, Bob Clampett and Chuck Jones. Voice acting Mel Blanc (voice of Bugs Bunny), and music was scored by Carl Stalling. P.D. Eastman and later Munro Leaf (at that time both emerging children’s book authors) were employed as writers at Fort Fox (1943), specifically working on what became known as the Private SNAFU films (Birdwell, 2005; Nel, 2007; Roe, 2009). Theodore Geisel (Dr. Seuss) was placed in charge of the output of the units, as well as being general scenarist. (Birdwell, 2005 p. 206; Nel, 2007, para. 3).

With Geisel at the head and the knowledge that the PCA would not censor the cartoons, the team drew on the Army, its bureaucracy and language to create an Elmer Fudd like character: ‘Private SNAFU’. He was designed to be a model of the worst soldier in the army, his name an Army acronym for Situation Normal All Fouled [sic] Up. (Birdwell, 2005).

SNAFU films used simple language, humour and moral tales to educate troops about what their attitude should be towards the enemy, and skills that would keep them alive while out on the lines. For example, the film Private SNAFU vs. Malaria Mike was part of an ongoing campaign to educate recruits that mosquitos cause Malaria, and what they could do to avoid infection (Nel, 2007). They reflected the experience of the non-career soldier while teaching cautionary tales in Seussian rhyme (Birdwell, 2008).

Factors that made the SNAFU films effective are generalizable to other settings. Use of animation demonstrates Edward Tufte’s notion that envisioned information is easier to understand and retain (Roe, 2007, p.49). Animation has the ability to show events no camera can see (DeGaudio, p. 190) such as in The Sinking of the Lusitania, and Stop That Tank (1942) where the animation segues from a caricature of Hitler being cast into hell to a realistic animated depiction of the inner workings and care of the gun that sent him there (Roe, 2009, p.45). Cartoons capacity to show the as-yet unknown, like scientific theories (DeGaudio, p, 193), made the Einstein’s Theory of Relativity and Evolution effective in communicating ideas, especially through the use of metamorphosis to help the audience make mental connections (Roe, 2007, p. 47).

Post war Disney continued to make educational films for corporations, including Dow Chemical, Texaco and General Motors (DelGaudio, 1997, p.190). Warner Brothers Studio moved back to entertainment-focused cartoons, but their involvement in the Private SNAFU films helped ensure that the US government would continue to make cartoon civil defense educational films, such as Duck and Cover (1951). Other companies began making civilian educational cartoons, including Bell Telephone, the Jam Handy Organization with Bray Studios. Topics included everything from on-the-job training films to “mental hygiene” and health films for school settings (DelGaudio, 1997).

The flexibility of cartoons allows for envisioning events and concepts never before seen. Use of humour, simple language, and metamorphosis holds our attention while making the unknown knowable. Had it not been for the early contributions of McCay, Bray and Fleischer and the later investment of the US military, educational cartoons would have taken a very different path through development and implementation.

References

Birdwell, M. (2005). Technical fairy first class? Is this any way to Run an Army?: Private SNAFU and World War II. Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television. 25(2), 203–212.

DelGaudio, S. (1997). If truth be told, can toons tell it? Documentary and animation. Film History; New York, 9(2), 189–199.

Langer, M. (1975). Max and Dave Fleischer. Film Comment; New York, 11(1), 48–56.

Nel, P. (2007). Children’s Literature Goes to War: Dr. Seuss, P. D. Eastman, Munro Leaf, and the Private SNAFU Films (1943–46). The Journal of Popular Culture, 40(3), 468–487. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5931.2007.00404.x

Roe, A. H. (2009). Animating documentary (Doctoral dissertation) Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/304996693/abstract/809DFEAA46964F2EPQ/12

The Influence of Technology in the Education Industry – Group Activity

The claim of no-learning benefit has been made and substantiated by Clark (1986). He acknowledges that media has economic benefits but not learning benefits. His theory on research and data is collected throughout many different research projects. He analyzed research that started in the 1960s and was tracked all the way up to the 1980s, but the data did not indicate how different teachers instructed.Clark (1986) also mentioned that authentic problems or tasks seem to be the most effective influence on learning. Since he believed that the media had no learning benefits, he stressed that a moratorium on further research dealing with media’s influence on learning was necessary (Clark, 1983).

Contrary to Clark’s (1986) research, the article “The Influence of Technology in the Education Industry” Dr Eliatamby (2018) says use of technology is, at its very core, blended learning. At its simplest, blended learning is “the integration of classroom face-to-face learning experiences with online learning experiences” (Garrison and Kanuka, 2004, p. 96). The use of blended learning creates space for students to actively participate in the interplay between their learning environment and their own cognitive processes (Kozma, 1994). Use of technology also allows for learning on the job or real-world learning to take place, or better generalization of student learning to real-world contexts (Kozma, 1994). This is supercritical in the age of industry 4.0.

In her article for Campus Technology, Reynard (2019) states the importance of understanding that how students’ think and learn has changed due to ongoing use of technology and talks about the integration of technology into design for learning. She falls firmly on the side of Kozma (1994) in advocating that course design should be done interdisciplinarily, setting out contextual problem-solving tasks for students, with an emphasis on the process of learning as opposed to the product (p.21). Use of technology in design for learning is not just about a method of delivering the information to the students, but also building utility with technology. Learning has to leave students equipped for the workplace, with skills that “involve thinking and processing information, including possible diversions of thought, redirection of focus and the integration of new ideas and trends,” and the ability to function within the technological world that they will be working in (Reynard, 2019).

In line with Eliatamby’s take on Technology and its role in learning Dalto (2018) adds that incorporating technology into a blended learning environment boosts learner retention. Dalto touches on technological applications such a mobile learning, AR, VR and 3D simulated environments. Clark (1994) argued that “. . . the usual uses of a medium do not limit the methods or content it is capable of presenting”, but his argument does not consider immersive environments that did not exist at the time of his writing. These new technologies also allow for freedom of instruction did not Clark did not take into account, these technologies “. . . provide[s] the ability to train in situations that would otherwise be too dangerous or expensive in real life.” (Dalto, 2018. p.5)

As Hastings and Tracey suggested in 2005 and even more applicable now media capabilities have changed dramatically over the last generation and the focus of the conversation should not be if, but how media affect learning. “Computers have unique, non replicable capabilities and therefore can support instructional methods that other media cannot” (Hastings and Tracey, 2005). The most important thing about the debate is to acknowledge that the instructional methods and the delivery medium must be aligned to facilitate learning.

Another consideration is raised by Watters in a recent blog post. Commenting on the function of computers in education, Watters quotes Weizenbaum (1995), “It is much nicer, it is much more comfortable, to have some device, say the computer, with which to flood the schools, and then to sit back and say, “You see, we are doing something about it, we are helping,” than to confront ugly social realities” (2019, para. 10). Indeed, based on Watter’s blog about Sesame Street moving from PBS to HBO in 2015 and then in October, 2019 to HPO Max echoes Weizenbaum’s observation in 1995 as this move results in restricting access due to socio-economic barriers. It could be argued that Sesame Street has moved so far from their original goal which was to, “…create a show for public (not commercial) television that would develop school readiness of viewers age 3 to 5, with particular emphasis on the needs of low-income children and children of color” (2019, para. 11) that it would appear Sesame Street has ‘sold out’. The implication being that they sold out in favour of higher profit rather than remaining accessible to its original, marginalised audience. Instead, the programming is available to only those who have the means to pay for it.

It is possible that Clark would agree that Weisenbaum is correct in his observation that computers could be used as a superficial solution to a much deeper problem. Whereas, Kozma might suggest that educators must consider media’s impact on educational outcomes while also exploring the far-reaching impacts as technology continues to advance. Regardless, the question of whether media will, or will not, influence learning is also about the accessibility of media.

References

Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 21-29. Retrieved from Potential_in_Higher_Education

Eliatamby, M. (2018, July 02).The Influence of Technology in the Education Industry [blog post] (2018, July 02). Retrieved from https://theknowledgereview.com/the-influence-of-technology-in-the-education-industry

Garrison & Kanuka (2004). The Internet and Higher Education. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222863721_Blended_Learning_Uncovering_Its_Transformative_

Hastings, N.B. & Tracey, M.W. Does media affect learning: Where are we now? TECHTRENDS TECH TRENDS (2005) 49: 28. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02773968

Kozma, R. B. (1994). Will media influence learning: Reframing the debate. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 7-19.

Reynard, Ruth (2019) Why Integrated Instruction is a Must For Today’s Tech Enabled Learning [blog post]. Retrieved from https://campustechnology.com/articles/2019/05/29/why-integrated-instruction-is-a-must-for-todays-tech-enabled-learning.aspx

The Influence of Technology in the Education Industry [blog post]. Retrieved from https://theknowledgereview.com/the-influence-of-technology-in-the-education-industry

Dalto, J. (2018). Ar, vr and 3-d can make workers better. Ise ; Industrial and Systems Engineering at Work, 50(9), 42-47. Retrieved from https://royalroads.on.worldcat.org/oclc/7862472750

Watters, A. (2019, October 04). Hewn, no. 324. [blog post]. Retrieved from https://hewn.substack.com/p/hewn-no-324