MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1842025785

Online Behavior and Cognitive Development

2007· article· en· W1842025785 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

affAu moins un auteur déclare une institution canadienne dans l'instantané OpenAlex épinglé.
aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.

Notice bibliographique

RevueEdMedia: World Conference on Educational Media and Technology · 2007
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueChild Development and Digital Technology
Établissements canadiensSimon Fraser UniversityMacEwan University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésThe InternetPsychologyCognitionWorld Wide WebComputer science
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Parents of 128 children in a rural elementary school provided information on home Internet access and children’s online activities. Children were individually administered four measures of cognitive development (expressive language, metacognition, visual perception, and auditory memory) and were asked to define ten Internet terms (e.g., email, chat, website). Ability to define an Internet term was assumed indicative of experience with that application. Parent response to the open-ended item what does your child do when he/she uses the Internet at home was thematically organized into four types of Internet behavior: learn, play, browse, and communicate. Children’s ability to correctly define Internet terms as well as parent reported online learning and communicating (but not playing and browsing) were associated with increased cognitive scores. Focused and goal-directed online activities (e.g., learning and communicating) are recommended for children 6 to 12 years of age. When asked about their activities the previous day, 22% of American 8 to 10 year old children indicated that they had visited websites (Roberts, Foehr, & Rideout, 2005). Approximately 20% of Canadian 9 year-olds access the Internet through their own personal computer (Media Awareness Network, 2006). Forty per cent of Australian children aged 4 to 6 years have been online for at least two years (Nielsen//NetRatings Internet and Technology Report, 2005). All trends indicate that the number of children accessing the Internet and the amount of time they spend online are steadily increasing (DeBell & Chapman, 2006; Livingston & Bober, 2005; Statistics Canada, 2004; U.S. Census Bureau, 2005). Greenfield and Yan (2006) conceptualize “the Internet as a new object of cognition, neither a concrete artifact nor a visible social partner” (p. 393). From a developmental perspective, “the Internet is a cultural tool that influences cognitive processes and an environmental stimulus that contributes to the formation of specific cognitive architecture” (Johnson, 2006, p. 565). The Internet and Cognitive Development As children develop, their cognitive processes and abilities (e.g., language, metacognition, perception, and memory) mature in response to genetic and environmental forces (Garcia, Bearer, & Lerner, 2004). Environmental forces include parents, peers, schooling, and media (Gentile & Walsh, 2002). The Internet is not like other media “in the sense that it is used primarily for communication, information gathering, and games rather than for passively experiencing narrative stories” (Tarpley, 2001, p. 551). Further, different sites support (Dix, 2005), and different users require (Johnson, in press; LaRose & Eastin, 2004), variation in sensory stimulation and active involvement. In this regard, Internet use during the developmental years may have a greater cognitive impact than previous technological innovations (Johnson, 2006). While video games are not dependent on the Internet, the Internet provides access to many gaming experiences. Approximately one-third of the time that children are online, they report playing games (Roberts et al., 2004). DeBell and Chapman (2006) concluded that Internet use promotes cognitive development in children, “specifically in the area of visual intelligence, where certain computer activities -particularly games -may enhance the ability to monitor several visual stimuli at once, to read diagrams, recognize icons, and visualize spatial relationships” (p. 3). Greene and Bavelier (2003) noted that on a range of visual attention skills, video game players out-performed those not exposed to video games. They concluded that “although video-game playing may seem to be rather mindless, it is capable of radically altering visual attention processing” (p. 536). Reportedly, visual-spatial skills such as mental rotation of shapes are superior in those who play video games (Sims & Mayer, 2002). In a comprehensive review of the literature, Subrahmanyam, Kraut, Greenfield, and Gross (2001) concluded that cognitive processes improve by playing video games. According to early childhood educators, the Internet supports emergent literacy, builds problem-solving skills, and facilitates concept development (Lynch & Warner, 2004; Parette, Hourcade, & Heiple, 2000). Clements and Samara (2003) recommended Internet technology as a tool for improving children's learning through exploration, creative problem solving, and self-guided instruction. Fuchs and Wosmann (2005) claimed that the Internet helps children “exploit enormous information possibilities for schooling purposes and increase learning through communication” (p. 4). Jackson and colleagues (2006) provided low income children home-based Internet access and continuously recorded online behavior. “Findings indicated that children who used the Internet more had higher scores on standardized tests of reading achievement and higher grade point averages 6 months, 1 year, and 16 months later than did children who used the Internet less” (p. 429). Johnson (2006) cautioned that “current anxiety surrounding children’s Internet use should be for those whose cognitive processes are not influenced by the cultural tool” (p. 570).

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Théorique ou conceptuel · Signal consensuel: Théorique ou conceptuel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,308
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,627

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,043
Tête enseignante GPT0,327
Écart entre enseignants0,284 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle