The paper "Screen Time Study Finds Education Drop-off by Rich " is a delightful example of an article on education. The principal objective of the research was to assess if increased screen time was contributing to education in children (Rich 1). The results were based on the data derived by interviewing a large sample i. e. 1577 parents, and evaluating multiple variables such as effects of increased screen time on cognition and learning as well as developing emotional and social skills. No data was specified for a level of controls however it was apparent that the tested sample constituted of educators and parents of young children (Rich 1).
The research was sponsored by producers of Sesame Street, the TV show and was conducted by Joan Ganz Centre which is a non-profit research institute. Being a dedicated research facility increases its credibility. The author of the article appears to be a science reporter of NY Times instead of any scientific researcher (Rich 1). The intended audience constituted of parents of young children, educators and producers of TV shows meant for children (Rich 1).
It was a statistical study with uncontrolled subjects. Parents were interviewed through internet-based survey conducted by GfK, a research company. Aspects like a level of education in terms of screen time and the nature of demographic segments were analyzed (Rich 2). An experimental approach cannot replace the current research methodology however same research method can be used for a supporting study constituting of young children (Rich 2). The group being studied had same characteristics i. e. parents of children under the age of 10 years (Rich 1). The data was verified by the research company conducting the online survey.
It cannot be assumed that the subjects were trained for the purpose and their answers were objective. However, such research companies are expected to select subjects that are relevant for the purpose. It appears that statistical tools like Super ANOVA meant for comparative study was used. Results were reported in terms of percentage. The sample size was 1577 and sample belonged to different locations in the given time frame belonging to different demographic settings (Rich 2). The sample was suitably large to support the objective and the results were multidimensional giving holistic outlook in terms of children’ s age, economic status, and education level.
No details for sampling error or range of variation were reported. The result was significantly positive. There were reasonable variations among answers of parents having different mean incomes. However, such differences further supported the study findings as they reflected on the educational level of parents as well. No tests were reported. There were no unusual results reported. The study was not replicated. However, its replication is possible and such a large sample can be accessed again.
The article did not mention any uncontrolled variables. There was a single hypothesis (null hypothesis) that increased screen time has limited educational value for children. No other hypothesis or data was analyzed. The research is financed by a media company that makes TV shows meant for younger children i. e. Sesame Street, which has better educational value for growing children as compared to other TV shows and movies made by commercial companies like Disney. Therefore, it is likely that the research only portrays one side of the story. There were no negative or unexpected results. The report did not mentioned anything about limitations however it is important to consider if the research company accessed the right segment and necessary measures were taken to ensure objectivity of the subjects during survey. The article supported generalization of the study findings over children under the age 10 and also indicated that the education content in TV shows reduces significantly with increase in age of the children for whom the programs are designed (Rich 2).
There was a limitation to generalization and no other research was mentioned to support unlimited generalization. The strongest feature of the article was complete discussion of sample, purpose of research, methodology used and research findings with statics and demographic discussion.
The weakest point was no discussion about research controls and limitations. There was nothing said about future research scope however these findings are needed to be accompanied by further research employing children under the age of 2-10 years and examine effectiveness of programs watched by these children in order to acquire corroborative evidence for the primary research.