Category: Children

Abstract

Vaccinations in the United States have been quite a controversial issue in that some see this process as beneficial and necessary, while others are skeptical and come up with reasonable explanations as to why vaccines are harmful. Nevertheless, vaccinations have been a process that has been conducted ever since scientist Edward Jenner performed the very first form of vaccination in the late 1700s. Jenner conducted the vaccination by inoculating a young 8-year-old boy with a small dosage of pus originating from Cowpox lesions on a milkmaid’s hand. To get a view of both sides of the argument regarding the issue of vaccinations we will begin with how the process of vaccination works. We will then break down each rationalization in regard to vaccines and determine which argument is strongly supported.

Are Vaccines Safe for Children?

Edward Jenner first came up with the idea of taking a small sample of infected specimens from an infected donor and then using this sample to inoculate into a healthy individual, so that the healthy individual receives immunity from what the infected donor is infected with. This process is known as Active Artificial Immunity, which is a means of artificially and actively giving a healthy individual immunity by vaccination. To understand the process of vaccination, we need to examine how the body works and how it responds to them. Our body has what we call the immune system, which protects us and fights diseases and infections we might contract throughout our life. With a vaccine, we take a sample of the virus and bacteria and weaken it, so that it does not manifest the harmful symptoms that it produces. Vaccination is the process of “preparing the body to fight disease without exposing it to disease symptoms” (LiveScience). If we contract a virus or a bacteria initially without having immunity to it is known as Natural Active Immunity. Our immune system responds rather slowly because it doesn’t have the antibodies that can help recognize and signal white blood cells to neutralize the enemy. These antibodies that are produced from getting a vaccination allow our immune system to recognize and neutralize the foreign body before it causes further infection and disease.

Some may object to the idea of vaccinations and rationalize that vaccinations can cause serious side effects which can be fatal. 1 in a million children are affected by the symptoms of anaphylaxis which can be found in all vaccines (CDC). The rotavirus vaccination can cause intussusception in about 1 per 20,000 babies in the United States according to ProCon. DTaP and MMR vaccines may be linked to causing symptoms such as long-term seizures, coma, lowered consciousness, and permanent brain damage. The CDC also reports that pneumonia can be caused by the chickenpox vaccine, and possibly that the flu vaccine could be associated with Gulliane-Barré Syndrome, which is a disorder in which the immune system attacks part of the peripheral nervous system, The Gulliane-Barré syndrome associated with the flu vaccine occurs in about one or two per million people vaccinated (ProCon).

The claims above make quite reasonable rationalities as to why vaccines can be dangerous, but the use of the examples is rare and doesn’t represent the majority of the population of children who receive vaccinations. This is a result of generalizing from a sample size that is too small to represent the overall population. An example in the article above of this would be that the rotavirus vaccine can cause intussusception in about 1 per 20,000 babies in the US 0.0005% is possible from contracting it. Intussusception is a type of bowel blockage. Not only is this sample atypical, but the age group affected only refers to babies which do not represent the majority of children. Another claim would be that “all” vaccines carry anaphylaxis, which is a life-threatening allergic reaction that affects 1 per million children. The rationale of “all” vaccines carrying a risk of anaphylaxis is another example of generalizing from a sample. As described in the book, when we reason that all, most, or some percentage of the members of a population have an attribute because all, most, or some percentage of a sample of the population have that attribute (Moore & Parker 2017). It may be true that all vaccines contain an allergen, but the claim should also consider that the majority of individuals are not allergic and therefore susceptible to anaphylaxis. Supporters against vaccinations here provided plenty of premises that are shown in studies and research from prominent administrations such as the CDC as to why vaccines may be harmful, but the examples used are quite atypical and don’t represent the majority of the population of people receiving vaccines.

Another example of individuals who advocate for not having vaccinations would be those who say the components or ingredients that vaccines contain are harmful. Vaccines can contain aluminum and it is known to cause neurological harm. Another ingredient formaldehyde found in some vaccines is known to be carcinogenic, exposure to large amounts can cause cardiac impairment, impairment in higher cognitive functions, central nervous system depression, convulsions, coma, and even death according to VaxTruth.org. Glutaraldehyde is another compound found in vaccines that are also used to disinfect medical and dental equipment. This chemical is found in the DTaP vaccinations, exposure to this chemical also leads to respiratory issues such as asthma (ProCon).

The claims above state the compounds mentioned can cause serious implications and numerous side effects. Note that there aren’t any accounts of affected individuals that link them to receiving a vaccine containing a compound to exhibit the symptoms mentioned above. The claims are simply explaining the ramifications of each chemical ingredient found in certain vaccines. These claims contain the fallacy of composition, in that the ingredients (parts) are described to have harmful effects and it is applicable that a vaccine (whole) containing it is harmful as well. In the example, formaldehyde found in some vaccines is known to be carcinogenic[…]exposure can cause side effects[…]and death. In the book’s definition, the fallacy of composition occurs when a feature of the parts of something is erroneously attributed to the whole (Moore & Parker 2017). In this case; vaccines containing harmful ingredients make them harmful. There’s also a sense of ambiguity in the fallacy of composition in what the word “harmful” is referring to. Ambiguity as found in the definition of the book is a word, phrase, or sentence when it has more than one meaning (Moore & Parker 2017). The word harmful can be implying that the amount of a particular harmful ingredient is what makes a vaccine harmful or the nature or the quality of that harmful ingredient in a vaccine is what makes it so. With this in mind, the writer doesn’t provide us direct information on how much of a particular ingredient in a certain vaccine is harmful, they just generalize that it is because of the well-known side effects it can cause. We can also see this in the example, “Aluminum is used in some vaccines and excess aluminum in human bodies can cause neurological harm” (ProCon). Again this sentence contains the fallacy of composition and has ambiguity in that we do not know what the writer means by the word “excess”. The writer may be implying that this particular vaccine has “excess” aluminum or that “excess” amounts of aluminum in the body can cause these harmful side effects. These statements simply provide information on the side effects of these harmful ingredients, but do not necessarily provide quantitative information as to how much of it found in a vaccine is able to cause harm.

On the other hand, advocates for getting a vaccination will argue that the ingredients in vaccines are safe in the amounts used. Certain ingredients such as thimerosal, formaldehyde, and aluminum can be harmful in large doses, but they are not used in harmful quantities in vaccines. Breast milk and infant formula expose children to more aluminum than vaccines do. Paul Offit, MD, notes that children are exposed to more bacteria, viruses, toxins, and other harmful substances in one day of normal activity than are in vaccines (Kelly 2014). The MMR vaccine does not cause autism according to Ellen Clayton, MD, JD, Professor of Pediatrics and Law at Vanderbilt Law School (Nancy 2015). All vaccines are tested for up to 10 or more years before they are licensed as required by the FDA (CDC 2014). Vaccines are also regulated and monitored by the CDC and FDA to ensure that the ingredients used in them are within safe limits.

When we examine this argument it is somewhat similar to the claim that ingredients in vaccines are harmful in that it provides little to no quantifiable information about how much of the ingredient is said to be harmful in a vaccine. The example, “Certain ingredients such as thimerosal[…]can be harmful in large doses, but they are not used in harmful quantities in vaccines”, does not provide quantifiable information, it simply generalizes that it is safe in the amounts used. This attributes to generalization using the fallacy of composition similar to the contrary, that ingredients (parts) are in safer amounts therefore, the vaccine (the whole) is safe to use. In comparison to the contrary, I would say that this argument; “harmful ingredients are in safe amounts” is stronger than the argument, “harmful ingredients in vaccines are dangerous” mentioned earlier, because it provides a different premise other than focusing on the generalizations of safe amounts of the ingredients to support the claim. Unlike the contrary, this argument supports its claim by providing examples of harmful ingredients found in other sources that children may be exposed to such as breast milk, infant formula, and day-to-day activities. We can see this in the example, “Paul Offit, MD, notes that children are exposed to more bacteria, viruses, toxins, and other harmful substances in one day of normal activity than are in vaccines” (ProCon). There is a flaw to this, however, in that it is comparing the normal activity of children to the harmful ingredients in a vaccine is the fallacy of rhetorical analogy. The rhetorical analogy is used by comparing two debatable things and making one of them seem better or worse than the other. First and foremost, the meaning of normal activity is ambiguous. It is unclear as to what Paul means in regards to normal activity for children, but he is implying and generalizing that normal activity exposes more children to more harmful compounds than what is found in a vaccine. This generalization is weak in that it is not representative of all children who exhibit what Paul describes as “normal activity”. Paul does not provide further premises to support this generalization other than it comes from his bias or expertise on the subject. Another premise that provides another angle of the claim would be that “Vaccines are regulated and monitored by the CDC and FDA to ensure that the ingredients used in them are within the safe limits”. This piece of information provides another dimension of evidence in supporting that vaccines are safe in that the regulation of vaccines are approved and licensed by a prominent administration; FDA & CDC, but it is vague in that it is not known what defines a “safe limit”. As you begin to notice, the claims to support “vaccines are safe” contain individuals of expertise and reputable institutions who tend to have credibility on this particular subject. Although there are a few fallacies, generalizations, vagueness, and ambiguity in their statements, as critical thinkers we are inclined to believe a claim partly because it is from a source that we think is credible and reliable. We determine credibility by determining whether or not they are an interested party or a disinterested party, as well as looking at an individual’s expertise through his education, accomplishments, reputation as well as position, according to the book (Moore & Parker 2017).

The final argument as to why vaccines are safe is that adverse reactions to them are extremely rare. A common side effect of vaccines is anaphylaxis, which occurs in 1 per several hundred thousand to one per million vaccinations according to Sanjay Gupta, MD, Chief Medical Correspondent for CNN and practicing neurosurgeon (ProCon). She states, “you are 100 times more likely to be struck by lightning than to have a serious allergic reaction to the vaccine that protects you against measles” (Gupta 2015).

Unlike the contrary of this argument; “vaccines are harmful”, the very small likelihood of an adverse reaction to vaccines is strongly supported by the large sample size of the population that doesn’t exhibit the side effects. This is supported by this example, “a common side effect of vaccines is anaphylaxis, which occurs in 1 per several hundred thousand to one per million vaccinations.” With regard to the topic of vaccinations, Sanjay Gupta is a Chief Medical Correspondent, and it is likely that her expertise and knowledge in making this claim should be held in high regard. When examining this claim we should also consider the size of the population and determine the margin of error. We cannot exactly determine whether the population is randomly selected and heterogenous or homogenous. We just know that the population size is sizeable. According to the book Critical Thinking, small samples contain huge error margins, with this in mind, the sample of 1 to a hundred thousand or even a million individuals exhibiting a side effect from a vaccine gives us less confidence in supporting the claim that vaccines are harmful.

In conclusion, both arguments contrary and supportive of whether vaccines are safe for children are still ongoing topics today. Both arguments in regard to whether or not vaccines are safe to provide scientific evidence from different sources to support their claims. However, there is support from individuals who hold significant expertise and knowledge of the issue of claiming that vaccines are safe. Adding to this, the probabilities provided of a large population of children getting vaccinated deem it unlikely that a majority of them will exhibit the harmful side effects of vaccines. Therefore as a critical thinker, arguments support that vaccinations are significantly stronger. In conclusion, the arguments for the contrary are weaker in that their rationalizations provided support evidence from atypical and rare occasions of a small number of individuals who have exhibited side effects after vaccination, as a result, it is atypical in that it isn’t representative of the population as a whole.

A plate full of viruses and a little soap is all it takes to explain to children the importance of hand washing. This behavior is essential to combat the spread of the coronavirus that in Spain already leaves more than 5,100 infected and more than 130 dead, according to the latest figures known at the end of this article.

Experts have been recommending for weeks that everyone, even the smallest, cover their mouths when coughing or sneezing with clothes or their elbows; the social distance of one meter or more is maintained, and that they wash their hands on a recurring basis, reaching the time of this act up to one minute.

But many times it is very difficult for fathers and mothers for children to understand the real importance of this behavior. A video of a child teacher in English, showing how dirt dissolves when you have soap on your finger, has traveled around the world and has been reproduced in several languages, including Spanish.

The experiment is simple. You need a dish with virus and soap residue, pepper is used to make it clearer. And the explanation begins: Mario, do you see how many viruses are on this plate? Put your finger in, please? ”A father says to his little one. The child introduces it and the viruses get stuck, they remain immobile. ‘Now take it out and pour water on yourself. What’s wrong? ”Asks the parent. ‘What a virus is left’, the child responds carefully.

‘Now please put soap on your finger and put it on the virus plate again,’ adds the father. After inserting his finger with soap, “the virus specks spread across the plate away from the area where the little one has inserted his finger. ‘Ala!’ Says the minor in amazement. To which the father bluntly responds: ‘That is the importance of washing your hands.’

The video broadcast on Twitter has more than 470,000 reproductions, in its Spanish version. Although it seems that the great diffusion has been produced by WhatsApp. A didactic and illustrative experiment, and above all a visual one, for children to learn the essential thing of washing their hands frequently with soap and water or with alcoholic solutions and which corroborates what the experts have been saying for weeks.

These maintain that the coronavirus is deposited on objects and remains active on them for several hours or days. When we touch them, we carry it in our hands and we catch it or we can transmit it to other people, including our babies or children. For this reason, frequent and thorough handwashing is paramount.

In addition to doing this experiment with our children at home, we can also count up to 20 with the youngest ones, sing to make it look like a game or even put together one like the example that some schools have spread. Named The coronavirus game consists of parents drawing a drawing of their little ones in their hands and, as they wash it during the day, it gradually disappears. If at night, there is no trace, the kids earn one point. The goal is to get 20.

Over time, research has been conducted both in laboratories and classrooms to investigate how learners learn, which in turn can be considered to establish effective teaching approaches. However, these are variable and can shift as we learn more about theories and research into how learning takes place (Pritchard, 2013).

For this assignment, the practitioner observed a child examine how they acquire knowledge in different educational environments while linking to learning theories. Observations are one of the ways to conduct primary research as the data collected is first-hand. Some of the most influential scientific discoveries have been found using this method, for example, Charles Darwin observed animal and marine life in the Galapagos Islands to formulate his Theory of Evolution. The advantages of observations are that the information gathered is up-to-date and the data is unique. However, this can be time-consuming, and personal bias can affect results. It is important to understand the difference between observation and interpretation to avoid bias (Lowe and Pavel Zemliansky, 2011).

Before the observations were carried out, the practitioner gained consent from the Headteacher and the child’s parents (appendix). Ethical guidelines must always be adhered to when observing, balancing the aims of research carefully with the safety and well-being of the participant (NSPCC Learning, 2020). The policies and procedures of the school setting must also be followed. Observation notes were unnamed and stored in line with GDPR guidelines. For anonymity, the child observed is referred to as child X.

There are many different methods of observation. For this assignment, the observation was unstructured, with the practitioner being a participant so that all behavior could be recorded and minimize the Hawthorne Effect. This is where the behavior of the individual tends to change when being observed (Payne and Payne, 2009). However, there is doubt whether the Hawthorne Effect exists in children aged 8-15 years. Also, Thorndike proposed that the effect declines over time (Bauernfeind and Olson, 1973).

Child X is in year three of a mixed year three and four class of thirty children. Child X is on the SEN register for moderate learning difficulties and often requires support with their learning. Child X is currently waiting for a diagnosis of ADHD because they struggle to stay focused and listen, makes unconscious noises, and is easily distracted.

Strategies are in place to help child X, such as ignoring minor misbehavior, using a short target sheet, and participating in movement breaks (Cowley, 2006). Studies have found links between ADHD and lower academic attainment. Specific learning problems such as dyslexia and poorer cognitive ability are known to be associated with ADHD and can affect learning. While ADHD is considered a neurological condition that a person is born with, environmental conditions also play a part. Similarly, genetic and environmental pathways are both thought to play a role in the association between ADHD and the impact of educational attainment (Sellers et al., 2019).

The first observation was during a guided reading lesson in the classroom. Child X is sat at the front so that they can concentrate. At the beginning of the lesson, child X said, ‘I’m hungry.’ The teacher suggested they had a fruit snack while the previous chapter was recapped. This identifies with Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Theory, where the teacher ensures that the child’s physiological needs are met. This need is at the bottom of the hierarchy and is thought to be the most important and must be met to progress to the next level (Petty, 2014).

The teacher paired weaker readers with stronger readers, a Vygotskian approach which is also one of the advantages of mixed year classes. Vygotsky stated that for learning to occur, the child should be in the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). They can move through this, completing tasks they cannot do independently with the help of a capable peer. Child X expressed that they were disappointed to be paired with this student, but the teacher insisted. Social interaction is fundamental to Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory (Bekiryaz, 2015).

Child X started well and was focused, following the book with the peer. However, after nine minutes, child X started rocking on the chair, making squeaking noises and tapping the table. This could be because the learning was teacher-led. The teacher was reading to the class, resulting in a lack of engagement from child X. Constructivists believe learning is not something that can be delivered to students passively listening to a teacher (Aubrey and Riley, 2019).

The teacher halted and praised the children for demonstrating good listening. Child X stopped and pulled the chair in. The teacher praised Child X for refocusing. The impact of behaviorist, Skinner’s positive reinforcement can be seen here. Through operant conditioning, behavior that is reinforced is likely to be repeated (Aubrey and Riley, 2019). The hidden curriculum could also be recognized, where the teacher promoted the expected behavior for it to improve. These routines and behaviors should be explicitly taught in the classroom so that students know their expectations, otherwise, they could become at a disadvantage (Alsubaie, 2015).

Bandura’s Social Learning Theory was also evident. A good role model sat with child X so good behavior could be imitated (Pritchard, 2013). However, this could work the other way too, with the undesired behavior being imitated, hence careful thought is needed when pairing.

These approaches were successful for Child X. By the end of the lesson, child X and their partner had analyzed the chapter collaboratively. They also agreed to play at break time, which resulted in a positive social identity (Burke, 2018). This is particularly important for SEN children, who can sometimes be seen as ‘low status’ and not part of the ‘in-group’ (Hornsey, 2008).

The second observation was during a Maths lesson in a small side room. The group included five children working below the expected standard, so the year two curriculum was followed. This relates to Piaget’s theory which focuses on stages of cognitive development, stating that children should not be taught content until they are ready (Bates, 2019). However, this is not always realistic in schools where resources are sparse.

Evidence of Tajfel’s Social Identity Theory (Tajfel, 1974) was also seen here. This group works together for Maths three times a week. Child X was visibly excited about the lesson, which demonstrated his sense of belonging in the group and helped build self-esteem. With similar levels of attainment, the group has formed strong friendships and regularly chooses to play and work together.

Further evidence of Piaget’s Theory of Cognitive Development was observed. Children use practical resources to help them understand more abstract ideas, which add to or modify their schemas (Blake and Pope, 2008). Zoltan Dienes built upon Piaget’s idea and developed dienes. These are blocks used as concrete manipulatives to learn complex mathematical concepts (Moyer, 2001). Child X used dienes repeatedly to learn subtraction when crossing ten and completed a worksheet. Through hands-on, visual learning, child X grasped this new concept which built confidence and increased motivation.

In contrast to the lesson in the classroom, child X contributed ideas and was focused throughout. Students have a desire to learn when the learning is interesting and useful to them and activities are fun. Also, success increases self-belief and in turn motivates (Petty, 2014). Dweck states that praising effort rather than ability increases motivation and develops a growth mindset (Aubrey and Riley, 2019). Child X was praised for using dienes to work independently.

The final observation took place on a school trip to Avebury. On arrival, the children were given a picture sheet with stones to find. Child X said, ‘Wow, I love being outside!’ This links to Dewey’s Theory of Experiential Learning, where knowledge is socially constructed and based on experiences. He believed schools should prepare students for the ‘real world’ (Arthur, 2009). Dewey also believed in outdoor education with the experience linking the doing to construct meaning (Ord and Leather, 2011).

Child X’s focus and listening were far better in the outdoor environment than in the classroom and the smaller Maths group. As the teacher talked about the history, child X leaned against the stones and touched and stroked them, while listening intently, and answering questions.

Howard Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences states there are eight types of intelligence. Using this, child X would be seen to have strengths in spatial, kinesthetic, and naturalistic intelligence. Though critics point out, there is no empirical evidence to validate this theory (Pritchard, 2013).

In conclusion, the outdoor environment appeared to be the most successful learning environment for child X in terms of engagement and focus, followed by the smaller Maths group. Child X would be an ideal candidate for the forest school held at the school for small groups. While child X benefits from the small Maths group, it is not possible to offer this for more lessons due to a lack of resources, most notably staff to take them.

Child X found learning harder in the classroom, possibly because of distractions and low confidence. Experiential learning had a greater impact, which was proven when Child X answered questions correctly during formative assessments after these activities. This relates to Dewey’s Educational Theory and Kinesthetic Learning and appeals to child X’s natural inclination to be moving and have something in their hands.

Many learning theories have been identified during the observations and different approaches were used according to the learning environments to help child X learn. Unfortunately, while schools can differentiate to support those with learning difficulties, they are unable to offer individualized education. There is no one size fits all but offering varied opportunities in different learning environments can only enhance learning and child development. Future learning for child X should continue to offer these so that they receive support where needed while also continuing to become an independent learner. A future diagnosis may help meet the needs of child X so that more focused strategies could be put in place to help them further.

Bibliography

1. Alsubaie, M. (2015). Hidden Curriculum as One of Current Issues of Curriculum. Journal of Education and Practice, [online] 6(33). Available at: https:files.eric.ed.govfulltextEJ1083566.pdf.
2. Arthur, J. (2009). Learning to teach in the primary school.: Routledge.
3. Aubrey, K. and Riley, A. (2019). Understanding and Using Educational Theories. 2nd ed. Los Angeles; New Delhi; Singapore; Washington Dc; Melbourne: Sage.
4. Bates, B. (2019). Learning Theories Simplified: … and How to Apply Them to Teaching. 2nd ed. Los Angeles, Sage.
5. Bauernfeind, R.H. and Olson, C.J. (1973). Is the Hawthorne Effect in Educational Experiments a Chimera? The Phi Delta Kappan, [online] 55(4), pp.271-273. Available at: https:www.jstor.orgstable20297533 [Accessed 20 Dec. 2021].
6. Bekiryaz, M. (2015). Teaching Mixed-Level Classes with a Vygotskian Perspective. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 186, pp.913-917.
7. Blake, B. and Pope, T. (2008). Developmental Psychology: Incorporating Piaget’s and Vygotsky’s Theories in Classrooms. Journal of Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives in Education, [online] 1(1), pp.59-67. Available at: https:www.people.wm.edu~mxtschTeachingJCPEVolume1JCPE_2008-01-09.pdf.
8. Burke, P.J. (2018). Contemporary social psychological theories. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
9. Cowley, S. (2006). Getting the buggers to behave.: Continuum.
10. Hornsey, M.J. (2008). Social Identity Theory and Self-categorization Theory: A Historical Review. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(1), pp.204-222.
11. Lowe, C. and Pavel Zemliansky (2011). Writing spaces: readings on writing. Volume 2. Anderson, South Carolina.: Parlor Press.
12. Moyer, P.S. (2001). Are We Having Fun Yet? How Teachers Use Manipulatives to Teach Mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 47(2), pp.175-197.
13. NSPCC Learning (2020). Research with children: ethics, Safety and Avoiding Harm. [online] NSPCC Learning. Available at: https:learning.nspcc.org.ukresearch-resourcesbriefingsresearch-with-children-ethics-safety-avoiding-harm.
14. Payne, G. and Payne, J. (2009). Key concepts in social research. Sage.
15. Petty, G. (2014). Teaching today: a practical guide. 5th ed. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Abstract

The purpose of studying children’s lying behavior is to give valid reasons on why children begin to lie early in life in order to conceal their wrongdoing. However, at many times children are coached to lie and it is harder to detect the lie when the child is able to conceal transgression and have good semantic leakage. We will examine and predict the effect of coaching lies and the cognitive load of children when they lie. Children (N=240; 3-8 years old) will see a researcher break a toy and steal a piece of the broken toy, and the child will be requested to keep this as a secret. During the experiment, the children will randomly be assigned to three coaching conditions (No coaching, minimal coaching, extensive coaching). Then, children will be questioned about the event in three different question including (open-ended, chronological order, reverse order.) It is predicted that increased cognitive load on children will give them harder time concealing their lies when they are asked to examine the experiment backwards.

Introduction

Recently, the research on the behaviour of children’s lying has been one of the main focus of forensic and legal psychology that studies children’s testimony at court. For many years, people questioned about the credibility of children’s testimonies. Children testimonies are less credible than adult testimonies because children are more vulnerable to coached lies. (Talwar, Lee, Bala, & Lindsay, 2006) Since children have harder time maintaining their lies (Talwar et al., 2006), we examine how coaching effects the ability of children in keeping the lie as a secret and maintaining that lie during more extensive interviews. Some studies have found that children lie for the benefit of others and assessing trustworthiness and moral approval is not necessary for the trust to form. (Fu, Heyman, Chen, Liu, Lee, 2015) It is also noted that coaching does influence children on maintenance and concealment of their truth and false information. (Vrij, Akehurst, Soukara, & Bull, 2004)

Nevertheless, the relationship between cognitive factors and children’s response to coaching are still very uncertain. Cognitive load refers to the total amount of mental effort used during information-processing. (Saykaly, Crossman, Morris, & Talwar, 2016) In order to do research about the coaching and cognitive load effect towards children, my study uses different question types to study the impact of cognitive load on children using different coaching tactics.

The difference in age also impacts the secret keeping behavior of the children. We also see that age matters when children’s lie. The older kids generally felt more guilt for lying than those who are younger children. One research shows that older children are less likely to reveal a transgression. (Lyon, Ahern, Malloy, & Quas, 2010) On the other hand, another research suggests that younger children are less likely to comment on the gains of the transgressor even if that means it makes the victim feel upset. (Smith, Rizzo, 2017, pg.114) Younger children also tend to less likely disobey the request of keeping secrets. (Laupa, Turiel, Cowan, 1995) The difference in response due to age in concealing transgression will be examined through increase in cognitive loads with different questions in different interview environment.

The first research question that this study will examine is: Do different amounts of coaching by instigators make difference in lie telling behaviour of children? We hypnotized that most of the child participant would keep an event as a secret when they received minimal to extensive coaching compared to no coaching. (Fogliati, Bussey, 2015) Children were better able to conceal their transgression because they had better sematic leakage control after the coaching. We also hypothesized that children will keep someone else’s transgression as a secret when there is heavier coaching because increased coaching reduces the information processing demands due to the increased practice time for rehearsing the false report. (Talwar, Yachison, Leduc, Nagar, 2018) It is also evident that younger children are more easily detected in lying which leads them to revealing transgressions whereas older children were better at maintaining their lies. (Talwar et al., 2018)

The second question this study will evaluate is: how does the impact of the interviewer change the behaviour of children’s lie regarding their cognitive load and working memory? We hypothesize that children will have harder time recalling the event when the cognitive load is increased such as doing a chronological and reverse order recall. (Saykaly et al., 2016) It is also noted that “younger children have more positive feelings with both non-disclosure of and outright lying about the misdeed compared with the older children.” (Smith, Rizzo, 2017, pg.124) This means that younger children feel less guilty about lying compared to older children because they are still developing their morality whereas older children have already formed the morality that lying could affect people negatively.

Method

Participants

For this research, there are 240 children participants (range=3-8 years, 120 boys, 120 girls) in this study that that were recruited from U of T child care Centre and a local kindergarten in downtown Toronto. We would want to conduct this research in the field such as kindergarten or daycare because children are considered to be around 3 to 8-year-old and studies show that moral and understanding of lying starts to show around that age. (Talwar, Lee, 2008) Children who are able to communicate with the interviewer and whoever that shows interest towards the aligned toys is also eligible to the study as well. The economic status and ethnic background will not be examined. 80 children for each category will be randomly assigned to three different interview tactics (no coaching, minimal coaching, extensive coaching) and they will be randomly assigned to three different interviews (open-ended, chronological order, reverse order). There will be a written consent form for the parents of the child to address the permission of the experiment. In addition, this research is ethical because we are not putting children into an immoral situation. Rather we are examining children’s behaviour on why they would lie under certain circumstances. At the end the research, children will be rewarded with a pack of M&Ms.

Study design

My study design will have a closed room with multiple toys that kids can play with. The instigator breaks the toy and steals a piece of the toy and tell the observing child to lie about the transgression to the recipient. We observe if the child lies for the instigator or not.

Materials

Instigator and recipient: An adult instigator and an adult recipient (Research Assistant) will be in a closed room with a child participant. The instigator will act as a confederate who coaches the children to lie. The recipient will act as a research assistant who interviews the children with different set of questions.

• Consent form: Parents will be given a consent form to sign to give extensive knowledge about the research and the purpose and design of the study.
• Toys: The toy box will be filled with various items including: Stuffed teddy bear, Gun dam plamodel, LEGO, Puzzles and Barbie doll.
• M&M chocolate: they will be used during the beginning to get child’s attention and will be again used during the second part of the question asking in chronological order, reverse order, and open-ended question. The child will also be rewarded with more M&Ms after the end of the study.

Measures

Coaching scenario

• No coaching: The Instigator will break a toy and steal a piece of the broken toy and will tell the child to keep the action of the Instigator as a secret. No further instructions to be given.
• Minimal coaching: The Instigator will break a toy and steal a piece of the broken toy. The Instigator will give two questions regarding about the event. For example, the Instigator may ask “what are you going to tell the recipient if the recipient asks what you were doing?” The recipient could also ask “What are you going to say if the recipient asks about the broken toy?” The recipient could also ask “what are you going to tell the recipient about the missing piece of the toy?” The recipient can also ensure the cooperation of the child by telling him/her “Do not mention anything about the broken toy to the Instigator, this is a secret between us two.”
• Extensive coaching: The Instigator will break a toy and steal a piece of the broken toy. The Instigator will give two questions regarding about the event. For example, the Instigator may ask “what are you going to tell the recipient if the recipient asks what you were doing?” The recipient could also ask “What are you going to say if the recipient asks about the broken toy?” The recipient could also ask “what are you going to tell the recipient about the missing piece of the toy?” The instigator will then advise the child to conceal the event in order to keep secret of the child. For example, the Instigator will say “we were just talking between us two, we saw the toy box but decided to not play with it since the toys were already broken. We did not touch the toy, it was already broken when we saw it.” The request to conceal the transgression is repeated until the child fully understands the request of the Instigator. The Instigator can ensure compliance by saying “Do not tell the researcher about the broken toy or the missing piece. Just say that it was broken already when we saw it, so we did not play with it.”

Interview question types

• Open ended question: The recipient will ask open ended questions. For example, the recipient will ask “what were you doing with the Instigator inside the room?”. The recipient could also follow up saying “can you tell me in detail what the Instigator told you to do or say?”
• Chronological order: The recipient will ask questions in a chronological order. For example, the recipient will say “what was the first thing you did or saw after I left the room?” The recipient will also follow up asking “after you talked with the Instigator, what did you guys do together?”
• Reverse order: The recipient will ask the question in a reverse order. For example, the recipient asks, “what was the last thing you guys did or talked about?” The recipient will follow up asking, “what did you do before that?” There also could be a filler question asking, “what color was the Instigators hair?”

Procedure

The Instigator, recipient and a child participant will enter a closed room with cameras on the side observing the room. The Instigator and recipient will build the trust between them and the child by talking about something they like and give the child some M&M candies. The recipient then will point to the toy box and ask them to bring a toy they like. In this case, the child brings a Lego car model that has already been built. After the child’s attention have shifted to the Lego, the recipient will leave the scene only leaving the Instigator and the child. The Instigator then takes the Lego model and smashes it on the floor making the Lego pieces fly everywhere and break into pieces. The Instigator must act like it was an accident to convince the child to not tell the recipient about the broken toy. As they examine the broken Lego, the Instigator also takes a small piece of the Lego and puts it inside his or her pocket. The Instigator must request to keep this event a secret and also inform the child to not tell anyone who broke the Lego or who took the missing piece of the Lego. Out of 240 children, 80 children will be randomly assigned to each of the coaching conditions. After 10 minutes, the recipient will return to the room asking three different questions. These include open ended questions, chronological order questions, and reverse order questions.

Children’s statement will be formed into statistical value whether or not the child tells the truth or lie for each question. We give score 1 if they kept their lies and did not mention about the broken toy or the missing piece. If they told about the broken toy or the missing piece of the toy, the child receives a score of 0. We also give score 1 if the child concealed some of the information and assign score 0 if the child said anything that the Instigator told him/her not to say. The outcome of 1 will say that the child lied, and outcome of 0 means that the child told the truth regardless of the Instigator’s instruction.

At the end of the interview, the Instigator will return to the closed room and tell the recipient that the Instigator broke the toy and took some of the missing piece of the toy. We then inform the child participant that this was an experimental study to evaluate rather the child would lie if they are coached to do so. We tell the child and their parent that this experiment tells us the significance of truth telling and how coaching and increased cognitive load could affect children significantly when making statements.

Expected results

We predict that most of the child participant will lie for the wrongdoing of the Instigator. As predicted, dishonesty was higher among coached children than among noncoached children. (Lyon, Malloy, Quas, Talwar, 2008) The heavier the coaching, children’s lying behaviour increased as coaching required less processing demand of the children. (Talwar et al., 2018) They often do not question the person coaching as they believe that this is what he or she wants. It is also predicted that age also effects the lying behaviour. As mentioned by the authors (Smith, Rizzo, 2017) “age-related changes in moral reasoning have been linked to age -related changes in evaluations and judgements.” (pg.114) This shows that morality develops as people age and even children can be categorized into multiple groups as age impacts heavily on child’s cognitive ability. The research (Smith, Rizzo, 2017) also found that older children are more likely to feel mixed feelings to a self-serving transgressor with positive emotion and guilt. (pg.114) They are able to have more guilt because their cognitive abilities have developed more than younger children. On the other hand, the author (Smith, Rizzo, 2017) says that “young children also tend to view self-serving transgressors as feeling good despite having committed an acknowledged moral wrong.” (pg.114) This shows the younger children still lacks the cognitive abilities to understand that certain lying is morally wrong. Nonetheless, it is evident that coaching improves the ability of a young children to hide certain incidents because younger children’s cognitive abilities are not as developed as the older child. (Malloy, Johnson, Goodman, 2013)

Furthermore, it is predicted that children will conceal the wrongdoing better in responding to questions when they are coached than not coached. The production of a cover story would increase the concealment of an event and their ability to maintain the lie. (Talwar et al., 2018) Children also tend to show harder time maintaining their lies asked in a reverse order of questions. (Vrij et al., 2008) Since coaching requires heavier use of the cognitive load, coaching may be not as effective towards younger children than older children. Younger children must undergo more extensive coaching to conceal their transgression and have more semantic leakage control.

Discussion

The accuracy of the testimony is especially important when using a child witness testimony. Children’s testimony can be the deciding factor of assessing the guilt of a defendant or the outcome of a custody hearing. (Talwar, Crossman, 2012) It is important to distinguish a credible child witness testimony and a non-credible child witness testimony. The purpose of this study is to address the effect of coaching influence on children’s lying behaviour for the benefit of others. All children in this experiment are asked to conceal an adult’s transgression. The cognitive load was extensively increased when the interviewer asked questions in different circumstances such as restating in a reverse order of what happened. Nevertheless, we assume that practicing concealing transgression with adult coaching would make the detection of the transgression harder.

Implications for the legal system

Implications for the legal system is that if we consider that child witness testimony is not credible, then we can use different recall methods of the event to reveal the concealing transgressions. An adult may coach a child to fabricate or misrepresent or deny an event. (Talwar, Crossman, 2012) Although coaching is useful, it is not as useful when the interviewer asks recall questions in chronological order and reverse order. A legal professional would be able to catch the contradiction of his or her statement when they ask recall questions multiple times because children are not as effective in hiding transgression when asked in multiple ways and different approaches. They are not able to make a coherent story as well as an adult can. In order to make child witness testimony effective in the court, a legal professional should go through an extensive question with multiple approaches to figure out what the child saying is credible or not.

Limitations and future directions

When we examine the limitation of my study, the children’s lying behaviour differs in relation to the seriousness of the transgression. Since the act of breaking a toy and stealing a toy is so minimal that a child may not consider this as a lie that would bring negative repercussions. Familiarity was also important in determining whether or not if a child will lie for that person’s transgression. For example, in the case of a child abuse, a child lies at a court to protect a parent who is accused of abusing the child by falsely denying that the abuse occurred. (Talwar et al., 2004, Pg.412) It is also evident that children will lie more for the person who they are familiar with but less likely towards a person they are not familiar with. (Lyon et al., 2010) However, we must be also aware that age difference also effects the outcome of testimonies. For example, “6-year olds were significantly more likely than 10-year olds to keep a secret about damage caused by the unfamiliar adult.” (Talwar et al., 2004, pg.413) The future examinations should address the effects of coaching by asking multiple questions in a different approach such as asking in a reverse order to sort out if a child is lying to conceal someone else’s transgression or not. The researcher could also make more unanticipated questions or more complicated cover stories to reveal transgressions that a child may possess.

Conclusion

We discussed how coaching and increase in cognitive load could affect children’s lying behaviour. It is also noted that the extent of coaching, different question types, and the age of the participant all effects the children’s lying behaviour and their ability to keep secret. In order to use this research in legal context, we must be aware that younger children tend to lie more than older children when they conceal someone else’s transgression. Children have harder time concealing their transgression when asked in a multiple different approach to interview questions such as stating the event in backwards. It is also highlighted that the familiarity of a person to the child matters if the child will lie for the targeted persons transgression. Legal professionals should keep this in mind and when they engage with a child for a testimony, the professionals should make the child feel comfortable, ask them in multiple order of questions to consider the credibility of their statements.

References

1. Fogliati, R., & Bussey, K. (2015). The effects of cross-examination on children’s coached reports. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 21, 10–23.
2. Fu, G., Heyman, G. D., Chen, G., Liu, P., & Lee, K. (2015). Children trust people who lie to benefit others. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 129(Complete), 127-139. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2014.09.006
3. Lyon, T. D., Ahern, E., Malloy, L., & Quas, J. (2010). Children’s reason-ing about disclosing adult transgressions: Effects of maltreatment, child age, and adult identity. Child Development, 81, 1714–1728.
4. Lyon, T., Malloy, L., Quas, J., & Talwar, V. (2008). Coaching, Truth Induction, and Young Maltreated Children’s False Allegations and False Denials. Child Development, 79(4), 914-929. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/stable/27563529
5. Malloy, L. C., Johnson, J. L., & Goodman, G. S. (2013). Children’s memory and event reports: The current state of knowledge and best practice. Journal of Forensic Social Work, 3, 106–132.
6. Saykaly, C., Crossman, A., Morris, M., & Talwar, V. (2016). Question type and its effect on children s maintenance and accuracy during courtroom testimony. The Journal of Forensic Practice, 18(2), 104-117. doi:10.1108/jfp-01-2015-0010
7. Smith, C. E., & Rizzo, M. T. (2017). Children’s confession- and lying-related emotion expectancies: Developmental differences and connections to parent-reported confession behavior. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 156(Complete), 113-128. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2016.12.002
8. Talwar, V., & Crossman, A. M. (2012). Children’s lies and their detection: Implications for child witness testimony. Developmental Review, 32(4), 337-359. doi:10.1016/j.dr.2012.06.004
9. Talwar, V., & Lee, K. (2008). Social and Cognitive Correlates of Children’s Lying Behavior. Child Development, 79(4), 866-881. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/stable/27563526
10. Talwar, V., Lee, K., Bala, N., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (2006). Adults’ judgments of children’s coached reports. Law and Human Behavior, 30, 561–570.
11. Talwar, V., Yachison, S., Leduc, K., & Nagar, P. M. (2018). Practice makes perfect? the impact of coaching and moral stories on children’s lie-telling. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 42(4), 416-424. doi:10.1177/0165025417728583
12. Vrij, A., Akehurst, L., Soukara, S., & Bull, R. (2004). Detecting deceit via analyses of verbal and nonverbal behaviour in children and adults. Human Communication Research, 30, 8–41.

Abstract

In America, there are many modes of education. Homeschooling, public schools, private schools and charter schools are the four most widely used options in America. Homeschooling, a more popular option in the 21st century, has recently rivaled public schooling which has caused a decline in its popularity. Although the popularity of public schooling has declined as of late, the positive effects (along with the negative ones as well), are still vastly prevalent in today’s youth and their futures. Like public schooling, homeschooled children are affected in many positive and negative ways, possibly even more so than the publicly educated children.

The Effects of Homeschooling

Adjusting to public schooling is one of the major factors in a students’ overall social, cognitive, and educational development. School adjustment involves three factors: children’s interest and comfort in the school setting, school engagement, and school achievement, as set by Demirtaş-Zorbaz, S., & Ergene, T. (2019). These three categories of school adjustment are important, for the experience received can affect the student long term in a positive or negative manner. In contrast, the lack of introduction to the school environment can cause negative effects for homeschooled children. West (2009) categorizes these effects into political harm, educational harm, ethical harm, and economic harm.

Student relationships in a public school setting

Student comfort in the classroom is one of the three categories that Demirtaş-Zorbaz, S., & Ergene, T. (2019) identified as a key factor in the adjustment process. In the classroom, students are faced with two types of relationships: student-peer and student-teacher. However, students that are homeschooled are lacking both key relationships that publicly educated children receive. Student-teacher relationships are important in the aspects of safety/comfort, academic success, and interest in the teachings. The lack of this student-teacher relationship, however, can leave homeschooled students feeling disengaged, not included, and not regarded as an individual person rather than a son or daughter. Student-peer relationships are also important in these ways, but they also majorly influence the students ‘morals, values, interests, and overall life pathway. Poor student-peer relationships can result in bullying (possibly leading to mental health problems), pressuring into following social norms, self-isolation, lack of educational motivation, and a decline in academic performance. Positive student-peer relationships can lead to many beneficial relationships (which benefit the student both socially, educationally, and cognitively) and can promote academic success.

Student Relationships in a Homeschooled Environment

In comparison, homeschoolers are not in such a socially involved and highly exposed environment, which limits their peer influence and its positive/negative effects. This can lead to ethical harms for homeschooled students, as West (2009) categorizes. Homeschooled students are not as engaged with their peers and other adults as publicly educated children are. This can mean that homeschooled students may not know how to properly and appropriately interact with people, or may struggle with anxiety in more socially active situations, as they are not continuously involved in that type of environment unlike publicly educated children. However, the lack of exposure to student-peer relationships can help lower the possibility of bullying to occur for homeschooled children, which negates those negative effects possibly faced by publicly educated children.

The Relationship Between Engagement at School and Academic Achievement

Engagement at school is another category of school adjustment, which can be influenced by activities, clubs, and organizations that a student gets involved with at the school. Engagement in the school can also positively and negatively affect academic achievement. Academic achievement is the final factor that Demirtaş-Zorbaz, S., & Ergene, T. (2019) identify in the public school adjustment process. In a similar fashion, West (2009) identifies educational harm as one effect faced by homeschooled children. According to Demirtaş-Zorbaz, S., & Ergene, T. (2019), academic achievement is highly influenced by the student-teacher relationship and by parental involvement in their schooling. A positive, comfortable student-teacher relationship can contribute to academic achievement in a positive manner, by motivating the student to perform at a higher standard than with a teacher they had a conflicted relationship with. Additionally, parental involvement will also motivate the student to perform better for the appraisal of their parents, it will hold the student accountable for school-related activities and assignments, and it gives the student a feeling of acceptance/satisfaction both as a child at home, and as a student in school by their parents.

Gratification for Academic Achievements

Lastly, standardized testing and acknowledgement of high grades and good effort in school are other ways that publicly educated children can be left feeling satisfied and appreciated by both their teachers and parents. West (2009) also acknowledges the importance of academic achievement, parental involvement in school for students, and standardized testing. Although these are important factors, homeschooled children may not receive the same gratification as publicly educated children and they may not feel as appreciated as an individual. The reason for this being that homeschooled children may feel only acknowledged as a son or daughter, rather than an individual (and hardworking) student. Additionally, students’ lack of gratification from an outside individual (teacher), rather than just a parent may lead them to feel negatively affected. Homeschooled children do not have to complete standardized testing. This is acknowledged by West (2009) as a major flaw in unregulated homeschooling. On the contrary, however, regulated homeschooling students have been statistically proven to score higher on standardized testing compared to public and private school students, according to West (2009). This is a positive aspect of homeschooling, but only if it is regulated by the state.

The Risk of Unaddressed Child Abuse due to Homeschooling

Additionally, West (2009) acknowledges that the risk of the ongoing abuse for a longer amount of time is much higher for homeschooled children. West (2009) cites a statistic that “95% of referrals for child abuse come from public school teachers or officials”. So even though the risk of abuse at home is also faced by publicly educated children, they are more likely to be helped out of (or rescued from) the abusive situation as most public educational officials are the ones to first report it. By supporting his claim that publicly educated children are more likely to be recognized as victims of child abuse, the claim that due to their lack of exposure to other people (specifically in a school setting), homeschooled children are likely to face prolonged abuse at home is also supported. This prolonged risk of ongoing child abuse is a major concern as it is directly reflected in Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, the second-lowest tier being “Safety and Security”. According to Abraham Maslow, if these needs are not met, it can lead to mental and physical health problems, which is something that is already a dominating issue at this time.

Conclusion

Even though the adjustment to public schooling is intense, it is one of the most impactful (and possibly rewarding) experiences they will ever receive. As Demirtaş-Zorbaz, S., & Ergene, T. (2019) discussed, the adjustment to public schooling can affect a student long-term and can affect them in several aspects. This adjustment, however, is one that not all students get to experience if they are homeschooled. Although homeschooling can be seen as a flexible and positive option for students, there must be a consideration of the negative effects (higher risk of abuse at home, a lack of feeling accepted, political harm, ethical harm, educational harm, and economic harm) that may impact many students, as West (2009) discussed. The drawbacks of this lack of experience can differ greatly, depending on the level of exposure and experience with other students their age and with adults.

References

1. Demirtaş-Zorbaz, S., & Ergene, T. (2019). School adjustment of first-grade primary school students: Effects of family involvement, externalizing behavior, teacher and peer relations. Children and Youth Services Review, 101, 307–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.04.019
2. Fu, R., Waasdorp, T. E., Paskewich, B., & Leff, S. S. (2020). Bullying perpetration among youth: The contributions of child disclosure and parent–teacher connection. Journal of Family Psychology. https://doi-org.zeus.tarleton.edu/10.1037/fam0000791.supp (Supplemental)
3. Ice, C. L., & Hoover-Dempsey, K. V. (2011). Linking parental motivations for involvement and student proximal achievement outcomes in homeschooling and public schooling settings. Education and Urban Society, 43(3), 339–369. https://doi-org.zeus.tarleton.edu/10.1177/0013124510380418
4. Johnson, D. M. (2013). Confrontation and cooperation: The complicated relationship between homeschoolers and public schools. Peabody Journal of Education, 88(3), 298–308. https://doi-org.zeus.tarleton.edu/10.1080/0161956X.2013.796832
5. West, R. L. (2009). The Harms of Homeschooling. Philosophy & Public Policy Quarterly, 29(3/4), 7–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.13021/G8pppq.292009.104

The third outcome is that the overall adoption of technology will increase in elementary schools. This will be due to the activity suggested which is that teachers will use classroom technology more often. The output for this will be the number of assignments that are given to students that include the use of technology.

Research Design

The goal of this study is to understand and measure the learning ability and skill development of children with the help of technology. The children are placed in two groups. One group will learn in a traditional classroom setting, while the other group is taught in a technology adopted one.

The research design method that will be used will be a mixed-method approach. The reason for this is because the things being measured include not only quantitative data such as numbers and averages but also qualitative data when finding students’ opinions and behavior.

The standardized tests that will be used are considered to be quantitative. These tests measure the skills, abilities and help compare students’ knowledge as well as find learning gaps. This type of test allows for data that are valid and reliable. The standardized tests will be given to both groups which include the traditional classroom and the non-traditional classroom.

The observation checklist that will be used is considered qualitative because it is not using any numbers it is simply based on the researcher looking into behavior. It allows the researcher to look into the “why” of the research. Questions such as “why is this student learning this and why is this student not?”

The last data collection tool that will be used will be structured interviews. These interviews will be considered quantitative because they can be easily replicated, and should be asked in the exact same way every single time.

These tools will aid in answering the research questions and testable hypotheses because by using the structured interview you can understand how and why a child might learn differently in a traditional classroom as opposed to a technology adopted one. The questions are aimed at understanding the overall comprehension levels, and the way that the children learn, as well as what they retain.

The second research question will be answered by using a standardized test. The children will be given a standardized test and will have their average scores calculated. The scores will determine the number of skills that were learned. This will answer the question of how technology affects the children’s skill set.

The last question that will be answered includes finding whether or not children will be able to feel as if they learned and retained the information that they were meant to. This will come from the interviews as well as the observations. While the observations are going on the researcher has the freedom to write down any side notes. This can include any type of behavior that stands out, or frequently asked questions.

The testable hypothesis is that there will be an increase in skills and grade averages for students who have the technology implemented in their classrooms.

Measurement

Instruments

The instruments that will be used to gather data will be standardized tests, performance checklists, and structured interviews.

The standardized tests will be used to collect data on children and how well they have learned the material that is taught to them. The test will test the effectiveness of technology integration in the classroom compared to the traditional classroom. This instrument will be used by requiring the test takers to answer all the same questions or a selected amount of them. The test is scored in the same way or in a “standard” consistent manner. This allows the tests to be compared based on the performance of an individual. These results from the test will be gathered and compared to further understand how effective integration of technology affects a child’s early cognitive development.

A checklist will be used as another method of data collection. This checklist will include whether the child was in a technology adopted classroom or if he/she was in a traditional one. While the researcher is observing, they will make a checklist to include the classroom atmosphere, the engagement level, and the level of participation. Once the classroom observation is completed the checklists will be compared for both types of classrooms.

Checklists are a part of the observation data collection method. In this particular study, the researcher will not be involved in the activities, a non-participant observation will be conducted, they will simply watch and write down what they see.

The last method that is going to be used will be structured interviews. The reason structured interviews will be used is because this specific study requires a set written list of questions. These questions must be predetermined and agreed upon before they are presented to the students. All questions must be asked in the exact same way to both groups of students. This will allow the researchers to have uniform information from both groups, and the results will not vary based on the level of expertise of the person conducting the interview. The interview will include questions directed to the students and learning that takes place. Questions about the children’s feelings, thoughts, and possible concerns will be asked. These questions will focus on both types of classrooms.

The structured interviews are a type of quantitative research. They are easy to quantify because they are easy to replicate. They are also easy to test for reliability due to them being easy to replicate. The research is focused on the overall performance of the student.

Sampling

The population of interest is children in elementary schools. The sampling strategy that will be used will be stratified random sampling. The reason is that the sample population will be divided into strata of technology adopted groups and traditional classrooms. From those two groups, a random sample will be taken and there will be a mixture of both sets of students. There need to be prior considerations when doing this, and parents must be notified about their child taking part in the research study. There should be a specified date and time that is set by the researcher to begin the study.

Data Collection

There will be primary and secondary data collected. This means that a mixed-methods approach will be used. After collecting data from primary sources (standardized tests, observations, and interviews) as well as secondary data (peer-reviewed articles), the data will be analyzed and used to find the answers to the research questions previously stated.

It will be implemented by first using observation in the classrooms. The researcher will conduct a non-participant observation and will do this after a specified number of weeks. The observation will take place with the sample population in both groups. The two groups will be separated and the observation will take place.

The second method to be used is the structured interviews. After a couple of assignments, the researchers will interview each student individually, a parent or guardian will be allowed to listen but will not be allowed to be inside the interviewing room. This will be true for both groups and all students.

The last method will be standardized tests. These tests will be given to students right before the study is over. The researchers will administer the exams, and both groups will be placed together for this specific part of the research. The reason is to avoid any external factors to affect the children taking the exams. When placed in different classrooms or different areas an external factor can affect one group and not the other. Placing both groups in the same room, at the same time, under the same circumstances, will allow all children to be able to take the exams without any distractions. This will also make sure that results are accurate, and that the sample population is tested fairly.

Analysis

The data collection methods that were chosen were the methods that were decided to be the most efficient for this particular study. Therefore, the data that is collected from these should be analyzed without a problem. The data that is collected from both groups is to be compared and it will allow for the identification of positive and negative change.

Ethical Considerations

The ethical considerations that come with this research study include the confidentiality of the children and their information. Looking into private information of children can create ethical issues if not handled with care. The responses given when they are interviewed must be kept confidential.

There also needs to be professional competence coming from the researcher. There needs to be objectivity when conducting the observation because the researcher needs to avoid bias. The research must remain objective to maintain the study results valid.

Limitations

The limitations of this study include the sample size being children. The reason this is a limitation is that children are sometimes not able to give thorough answers to questions. This will cause a limitation when the interviews are performed. The questions will most likely not be answered as effectively. The questions could be too broad or too specific and since the study includes a structured interview, it would be very hard to change the questions or try to ask them a different way.

Another limitation can include the Hawthorne effect. This effect is defined as, “the tendency of people to work harder and perform better when they are participants in an experiment” (Cherry, 2018). Children are more likely to be distracted by a new person or an adult being in the room. They will most likely act differently or be afraid to participate in the way they usually do.

Another limitation is the sample size. There will only be two groups of students that are used as part of the research. This sample size might not be sufficient when drawing a conclusion.

Children’s learning style can also be a limitation because not every kid learns the same way and at the same rate. The limitation can also tie in with the way the teacher is teaching her students, and how efficiently.

The last limitation is the standardized test. The limitation can be the test not measuring what it is supposed to measure. The test might be given and it can provide reliable results but does not mean it will also be valid. If this test does not measure what it is intended to measure then it will not be valid and the results may not be accurate.

Sample Instrument

A sample of the potential interview questions will be explained and provided. The interviews will be structured as mentioned above. These will be set and they will not be changed, they will be asked how they are written to every student.

1. Did you enjoy learning today, and why? * Open-ended answer*
2. Did you understand what was taught in class? * Open-ended answer*
3. What information did you retain from today’s class? * Open-ended answer*
4. Do you think you can teach me what was taught to you? * Open-ended answer*
5. What did you think helped you learn the most? * Open-ended answer*

The questions will all be asked in English because this study is taking place within the U.S and it is a known language for most participants. The data collected will be used to understand the sample of children better.

Conclusion

Overall, this study shows the benefits of technology use in early childhood. This study is focused on understanding the need for technology adoption throughout the United States and the world. After the study is completed, the researcher will be able to identify if technology integration and adoption allowed the children’s skill development.

However, there are various procedures and policies that must be followed when conducting this research and when trying to persuade overall adoption. The adoption has to be accepted by all, there has to be a big enough budget, and there has to be a will to adopt. If there is a will, then there should also be limitations and precautions that need to be taken when introducing children to technology. The implementation needs to be impeccable, to provide a sense of security to those parents who are not completely convinced that technology can provide benefits to their child’s development.

Introduction

In the twenty-first century, video games have become an important part of many people’s childhoods. It’s been a part of approximately 64 million boys’ and girl’s childhoods in America, a study conducted in 2011 by the NPD Group found that 91% of children, play video games. For tens of millions of children and teens, video games have become a popular pastime, As shown in a McAfee study, children spend an average of 2.13 hours each day playing video games, As a result, parents may view video games as merely a way to waste time, causing their children to study less and as a result receive poor marks, hence, the raising concern because video games are only going to get more popular and have a wider reach among children as time goes on. In this essay, I will go over all the statistical data, as well as the opinions and beliefs of those who believe video games have an impact on children’s behavior and mental health, as well as those who do not, and then I will discuss the potential positive and negative effects that video games might have on you in general. In addition, I will express my thoughts on the subject.

Violence

To begin, If there is a direct causal link between violence shown in video games and users becoming more violent in their daily lives, we would expect to see increases in violence spurred on by some of the most popular violent video games in history, and there are certainly some very early video games that fit this description.

If we want to talk about realistic video game violence becoming popular in the mainstream, we’d have to go back to the early 1990s and games like Mortal Kombat and Wolfenstein 3D which were released in 1992 and 1993. Since then, we’ve seen plenty of other violent video games get bad press, such as the Grand Theft Auto series, Call of Duty series, battlefield, and so on, but for the most part, the availability of violent video games has remained relatively constant.

According to a graph that ‘Medium'(The incomplete history of video game sales) shows how the gaming industry grew in terms of both the number of copies sold per year and the number of titles released per year, and according to the graph, the number of video games sold and released began to rise in the mid 1990s with the release of consoles such as the PlayStation and Nintendo 64, peaked in the 2000s, and then began to fall in the mid-2010s, then If video games are a direct cause of violent crimes committed by minors, then the increase in video game sales, which include violent video games, occurred between the mid-1990s and the mid-2010s, then a youth crime statistic will show an increase in the number of crimes committed by people aged 12 to 17, but in a graph done by Statistia(U.S. – number of serious violent crimes by youth 1980-2018) shows that the number of crimes committed by people aged 12 to 17 peaked in the early 1990s and then dropped by 90% from the mid-1990s to the mid-2010s Even though crimes aren’t committed as frequently as they once were, the news and social media will portray it as the worst it’s ever been, even Donald Trump the 45th president of the United States Of America stated that ‘Video games am hearing more and more people saying that the level of violence in video games is really shaping people’s thoughts’ in a white house briefing on CNN the problem is less because the number of crime committed is increasing but mass shootings are becoming more bigger and more frequent in the media.

Mass Shooting

Let’s start with a definition of a mass shooting. A mass shooting is defined as an incident in which at least four people are killed by a firearm. According to a study conducted by the Harvard School of Public Health(Yes, Mass Shootings Are Occurring More Often), there were 1.6 mass shootings per year from 1982 to 2006, and from 2007 to 2019 it increased to 5.4 per year. On the other hand, according to a graph created by the FBI (The U.S. Murder Rate Is Up But Still Far Below Its 1980 Peak), 73 percent of all murders are committed with a firearm, which is an all-time high. So, rather than asking if video games affect every person who plays them, we should ask if they are affecting select individuals to become more violent and commit mass shootings.

First , we must consider the role of video games in the lives of young mass shooters. Let’s start with the two shooters at Columbine. They were both fans of ‘Doom,’ and Adam Lanza, the person responsible for the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting was a fan of ‘Left for Dead,’ ‘Grand Theft Auto,’ and ‘Call of Duty,’ according to the State of Connecticut Division of Criminal Justice(Report of the State’s Attorney for the Judicial District of Danbury on the Shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School and 36 Yogananda Street, Newtown, Connecticut on December 14, 2012, p.25) While it is true that some mass shooters are video game fans, you cannot draw a causal link between violence and video games because I can think of a lot of mass shooters who aren’t video game fans.

in-fact a report made in 2004 by the secret service(THE FINAL REPORT AND FINDINGS OF THE SAFE SCHOOL INITIATIVE)(p.22) only 12% of school shooters had any interest in video games. However, because the majority of school shootings are committed by young men, and 72% of men under the age of 30 play video games (Pew Research Center – 5 Facts About Americans And Video Games) You could make a case that it’s a statistical coincidence, so it wouldn’t surprise you if I told you that young men who do wrong have the same habits as young men who don’t, but there is one piece of evidence that convinces me that video games do not cause violence.

the most powerful study on this topic comes from The Supreme Court The Supreme Court noted that ‘Psychological studies purporting to show a connection between exposure to violent video games and harmful effects on children do not prove that such exposure causes minors to act aggressively. Any demonstrated effects are both small and indistinguishable from effects pro- duced by other media.’ (Brown, Governor of California, ET AL. v. Entertainment Merchant Association ET AL, p.2) and ruled a law prohibiting the sale of certain video games to children is unlawful

The Real Cause

America is not unique in its video game industry growth, but it is clearly different in its gun violence. When compared to other countries with large video game industries, the United States ranks first in terms of money spent on video game development, followed by China, Japan, Korea, Italy, Germany, and Canada. (NewZoo – Top 10 CountriesMarkets by Game Revenues) According to GunPolicy(Global Impact of Gun Violence), China does not release gun statistics, whereas the rest of the list Japan and Korea have a score of 0.00, France has a score of 0.12, Italy has a score of 0.97, and Spain has a score of 0.58. Germany has 1.01, has 0.17, and the United States has 12.09. The United States has more gun deaths than all of them put together. These countries are unable to prevent gun violence, even though their gun deaths are significantly lower than in the United States, but why is it that video games are solely to blame for youth gun violence in the United States?

The Limitation of Research Against Video Games

There is a lot of research on the connection between video games and violence, and there are a few that show a link between video games and aggression. However, the issue is that the majority of news outlets will report on a study on violence resulting from video games, but they don’t understand it or understand the limitations of the study, such as how can you test Violence? You can’t give a minor a first-person shooter game and then give him a gun to act it out in real life. Signs of violence would be things like giving someone hot sauce as a level booster, for example, and its not a good indicator. I’m not saying these studies aren’t valid, but comparing giving someone a hot sauce to killing someone is a huge leap. I’m okay with considering that video games have an increase in violence. Since the American Academy of Pediatrics (Virtual Violence) issued a statement condemning violent video games.

“One day they leave Omelas and walk ahead into the darkness, towards a place even less imaginable to most of us than the city of happiness and they do not come back”. ‘The Ones Who Walk Away from the Omelas’ by Ursula Le Guin is a short story about a dystopian society where they sacrifice the freedom of a child for the progress and happiness of a city named Omelas. Its main characters are the boy, the narrator, and the society of the Omelas. In this story, the author uses the narrator to illustrate the sacrifices societies make for the greater good of the community.

The narrator gives the reader the only insight into what is happening throughout the story. The narrator describes their society as utopian, but there always seems to be a sinister tone. One could hear the music winding through the city streets, a cheerful faint sweetness of the air that from time to time trembled and gathered together and broke out into the great joyous clanging of the bells. The citizens of the Omelas live in a serene harmonious environment. However, they took happiness for granted. The narrator says ‘We can no longer describe a happy man’. The Omelas have no feelings of joy and are constantly discriminated against about what is necessary, what is neither necessary nor destructive, and what is destructive.

Although the Omelas usually hold a festival in the pavilion near the starting line the narrator says that there is no guilt in Omelas. In a basement under one of the beautiful public buildings of Omelas, or perhaps in the cellar of one of its spacious private homes, there is a room with a child in it. It is always looked away from the rest of the population and only a few people go there to see the child. The floor is dirt, a little damp to the touch, as cellar dirt usually is. The child is kept there in abominable misery so that the beauty of their city, the tenderness of their friendships, the health of their children, the wisdom of their scholars, the skill of their makers, even the abundance of their harvest and the kindly weathers of their skies would remain with the Omelas.

The children often don’t like seeing the child suffering. They wish they could help him or her out of the misery. They would like to do something for the child. But there is nothing they can do. If the child were brought up into the sunlight out of that vile place, if it were cleaned and fed and comforted, that would be a good thing indeed; but if it were done, in that day and hour all the prosperity and beauty and delight of Omelas would wither and be destroyed. To exchange all the goodness and grace of every life in Omelas for that single, small improvement: to throw away the happiness of thousands for the chance of the happiness of one: that would be to let guilt within the walls indeed

The story goes that sometimes, anyone who goes to see the child does not go home to weep or rage does not go home at all. They may leave home and never come back again. They go into the street, walk down the street alone, and keep walking out of the city of Omelas, through the beautiful gates. They keep walking across the farmlands of Omelas until the night falls. They go west or north, towards the mountains, and leave Omelas into the darkness and do not ever come back.

In conclusion, this story describes a selfish utopian society that sacrifices the happiness of one child for the prosperity of all. The Omelas community exists in the idea of the need to exchange all the goodness and grace of every life in Omelas for that single, small improvement: to throw away the happiness of thousands for the chance of the happiness of one: that would be to let guilt within the walls indeed.

Did you know that 47% of children who do not know how to cook do not lead a successful life? I strongly believe that all children need to learn how to cook. Firstly, children will respect the hard work that goes into cooking, secondly, it helps children build relationships with family members, and lastly, it will give children an important life skill for when they are older.

First, it is necessary to encourage the child to learn how to cook because in this way children will respect the hard work that goes into cooking. As a child, I did not respect my parents’ cooking. I would throw away much of the food simply because they were ‘gross’. My parents decided to teach me morals by also teaching me to cook. After learning how to cook, I started to appreciate other people’s cooking, while also learning to respect my own. If children are taught to cook, their minds will also go through these positive changes. Teaching children to cook is a powerful learning experience, yet children do not necessarily feel like they’re learning anything important. After all, learning to cook can be a lot of fun. The lessons are big, though. Children who know how to cook understand what goes into preparing food. They may have a better idea of the fact that food doesn’t just make itself.

Secondly, it helps kids build relationships with their families. Studies show that children who bond with their families have brains that develop much faster than children who do not. Cooking, although dangerous, can be done as a hobby or fun activity with family members. The effect it has on the child is truly a miracle. The bonding automatically makes children talk more openly, allowing them to improve in social skills. This will overall benefit the child in many ways.

As an adult, a gourmet lifestyle doesn’t always fit into the budget and expenses. Buying cheap food from the grocery store isn’t completely palatable. If the only thing you can rely on is making your food, it doesn’t necessarily help if you were never taught to do so. When children turn into adults, cooking is a necessity. It is also the cheapest and safest option for food. How can cooking be implemented into your life at such a major point in life? It simply isn’t possible, it needs to be learned at a stage where the brain is still developing. In childhood, cooking needs to be implemented. Adulthood can take a bumpy pathway if cooking isn’t learned at the period when most brains are still developing. When people are adults, they simply do not have the time to learn the art of cooking. Subsequently, they will take more time to make their own food successfully. If all adults already know how to cook, there is simply no problem. They will all be able to cook as though it is the easiest skill to perfect. Cooking is a skill that needs to be put into children’s lives before they are fully grown adults, otherwise, their lives will go through many difficulties.

In conclusion, I believe that parents need to teach their children to cook from a young age. There are many reasons why this is the most important skill. Cooking helps children appreciate food and the way it is made, it helps children build closer relationships with their families, and also it is essential to life.

Praising children is often perceived as a beneficial way to reinforce your child’s sense of self-accomplishment and achievement. Parents frequently use praise to encourage and motivate their children’s certain behaviours and to boost their self-esteem. However, over-praising your child may lead to adverse effects, such as decreased motivation and self-consciousness (Swann, 2012). Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to support the advice that over-praising kids does more harm than good (Chapnik Myers, 2018), by examining two empirical journal articles and discussing the different methods, results, and findings of the studies.

The first journal article I have chosen to examine shows how inflated praise may have a negative effect on a child’s motivation, causing an avoidance to seek out challenges and can increase the fear of failure in children with lower self-esteem (Brummelman et al, 2014). Brummelman et al conducted a study with 240 participants, who were all children aged 8-12, of which 103 were male and 137 were female. The participants were all visitors to the Science Center NEMO Museum in the Netherlands and agreed to participate in the study and received parental consent. The participants were asked to recreate a famous painting and told that a professional painter would judge their work afterward, when in fact there was no professional painter. The finished drawings were taken to a different room, where the painter was supposedly going to be judging them. A few minutes later, the experimenter re-entered the room with a note, supposedly written by the painter. The children who were in the inflated praise condition received a note saying, “You made an incredibly beautiful drawing!”, while the children in the non-inflated praise condition received a note saying, “You made a beautiful drawing!”, and lastly the children in the no praise condition did not receive any feedback on their drawings. The children were then shown simple and complex variations of the same painting and were allowed to choose which one they wanted to draw. They were informed that if they drew the difficult variations, they would make more errors but learn a lot and that if they drew the simple variations, they would not make any errors but would not learn as much. The results indicated that the participants took on more challenging tasks after non-inflated praise, however after inflated praise, they avoided challenging tasks. The results also showed that over-praising children could lead to an avoidance of critical learning opportunities, which could have negative effects on their learning and development. Furthermore, Brummelman et al found that inflated praise provokes defense mechanisms in children with lower self-esteem, which discourages them from activities that may reveal their weaknesses. Brummelman et al’s study supports Chapnik Myers’ advice that over-praising kids does more harm than good, as it shows us the adverse effects over-praise can have on children’s self-esteem, motivation, and learning.

The second journal article investigates how under and over praising children resulted in poorer academic performance and a higher risk of depression (Lee et al, 2016). Lee et al conducted a study with 337 participants, who were all elementary school students. The study population included 118 third graders, 99 fourth graders, and 120 fifth graders, of which 161 were male, and 176 were female. The students gave their written informed consent and their parents were informed of the study and gave parental consent. The participants were asked to complete a questionnaire during class, with questions regarding their parent’s praise of their academic achievements and whether they thought it was inflated or deflated based on their actual academic performance. The questions were answered using a 7-point scale, with 1 being “very much understated” and 7 being “very much overstated”. Their levels and severity of depression were also measured in the study. The results concluded that when students perceived parental praise as an inaccurate reflection of their actual achievement (either under or over-praised), they tended to perform worse academically. Furthermore, students who felt overpraised had higher levels of depression and emotional distress than children who received accurate praise. Lee et al’s study undoubtedly supports the advice that over praising kids does more harm than good, as it demonstrates how over praising children can result in poorer academic achievement, higher depression levels, and emotional distress.

Both studies demonstrate the negative relationship between over-praise and children’s development and well-being. Over-praise often results in lower self-esteem and decreased motivation and work ethic, as children may feel disheartened by over-praise as they may perceive the praise as disingenuous (Swann, 2012). This also hurts the child’s motivation and future learning and development, as children will tend to avoid challenging themselves, which can lead to major academic setbacks. Not only does over-praise have detrimental effects on children with lower self-esteem, but also on those with high self-esteem, as inflated praise can lead to high levels of narcissism and self-admiration (Brummelman, 2017).

While researching different studies, I learned that over-praising children hurts what praise is intended to do – increase motivation and self-esteem. This is important to recognize as parents might not be aware of how their inflated praise may be halting their child’s mental growth and development, rather than encouraging it. This is an aspect that I have only just considered while writing this paper, as typically when I think of praise, I associate it with positive connotations and encouragement. This advice will help me in the future as.The two studies I examined conducted by Brummelman et al (2014) and Lee et al (2016) strongly support the advice that over-praising kids does more harm than good (Chapnik Myers, 2018), by demonstrating the negative effects of inflated praise, leading to higher levels of emotional distress and depression, lower self-esteem and academic achievement, an avoidance to seek challenges, and has detrimental effects on the child’s future learning. After researching different studies, I would support Chapnik Myers’ advice and offer the same advice to any parent.