Summers, Juana. Kids And Screen Time: What Does The Research Say? nprEd.

NPR, 28 August 2014. Web. 8 April 2017

The author, Juana Summers, is usually a congressional reporter for NPRs Washington
desk. NPR's website lists the article in the Learning and Tech section, but Summers
mostly has reported on political matters, which makes me question her credibility
regarding this topic. With that said, she has a tremendous amount of reporting
experience, which helps me believe that I can trust the source in this case.

The article starts by stating that children spend an increased amount of time in front of
screens, and then goes on to describe research published in a journal by UCLA. The
study states that children with unlimited access to screens were worse at recognizing
emotions than children that had attended a camp for five days with no access to
technology. After going over the research, the author talks about how this might affect
educators that are considering implementing more technology in the classroom.
Towards the end, Summers talks about what some researchers have recommended
that could be limitations on screen time for children based on age, and some things that
could be done to avoid any adverse effects of screen time on children. In conclusion,
the author suggests that parents come up with limitations along with their children since
entirely avoiding technology is unlikely and would be a detriment to children in this
modern time.

The author seems to be informing the audience and expanding on a line of inquiry about
adverse effects of screen time and how one might avoid problems. She achieves this by
providing research right in the beginning and then proceeding to expand. She also
provides other statistics about how screen time affects all ages of children based on
other articles and research completed well before she wrote this article.

This article would expand on some other sources that I have found by providing some
background and additional ways to look at the effects of screen time on children beyond
intelligence and physical health.

Overall, the article is a good source for me to start with. It provides some other sources
of information by listing the journals where the author found her research. While I was
initially worried about the authors possible lack of experience with researching and
writing about child development and technology, I trust NPR as a reputable source for
legitimate information, although it can sometimes be difficult to tell if the information
provided is biased or not.

I intend to initially use the article as a resource for finding more related information. I will
also use the statistics given regarding the amount of time children spend in front of a
screen versus what the article says some scientists suggest. This, combined with the
information provided in the Mayo Clinic article, should give me a rounded out view of
screen time suggestions. Since I also intend on talking about ways to combat the
adverse effects of screen time on children in my paper, this article also helps me
discuss how even a short-term (5 days) without technology can benefit childrens
development.

Evans, Stevie. Are kids spending too much time in front of a screen? Tech Media Now.
techmedianow.blogspot.com. 9 October 2012. Web. 9 April 2017

The author, Stevie Evans, seems to write primarily about new and emerging technology.
This could lend to his credibility regarding the effects of screen time on children. He
appears to write well about the report that he is referencing. Beyond the few technology
blog posts that the author has written, I was unable to find much writing in general,
which forces me to question his credibility and ability to stay unbiased.

The author starts by referring to a study done about screen time. The author believes
the access to technology will get easier as new cheaper products are released. Later,
he provides a chart describing parents concerns regarding screen time, showing that
over 50% of questioned parents were concerned with the amount of time their children/
teenagers spend in front of a screen. He goes on to provide examples of adverse
effects of too much screen time and again speaks about how he believes the issue will
worsen as technology, like tablets and smartphones, gets cheaper. In conclusion, the
author writes about a time when he used to dismiss research and articles that stated too
many adverse effects related to screen-time, but now that he has seen this research, he
believes if screen time for both children and adults start to outweigh everything else, he
will want to revisit the issue.

The author seems to be sharing new information with his audience. He references and
links the research that prompted the article, and then elaborates on some opinions
regarding said research. His graphics help prove his exigency and kairos. The graphs
seem like they would be appealing to the authors audience since graphics can provide
information quickly regarding the purpose of his article.

Initially, I believed this article was intended to expand upon the topic of child
development and screen time. It seems like the author already held a stance and felt
screen time was detrimental to the development of children. Because of this, I initially
thought the article and author might be too biased for my needs. However, once I
completed reading the article, I realized the author seemed to write about and look at
this research because he was legitimately surprised by the outcome, and had possibly
had a change of heart. This challenges my initial belief that Evans was biased.

I intend to use the graph provided in the article that talks about parents concerns
regarding screen time for their children. The figure will help me prove my exigency and
kairos, while also appealing to my audiences pathos and logos. This article helps give a
purpose to the other scientific articles in my research project, by providing the graph
that talks about parents' concerns about screen time.
Seattle Anne. Seattle with Kids A Guide. Web blog post. The Best of Seattle, My
Little Nomads. 21 March 2017, https://seattleanne.com/seattle-with-kids. 9 April
2017

This sources author, Seattle Anne, seems to be very credible when it comes to
speaking about activities to do in Seattle with kids. The whole blog is dedicated to
Seattle-based activities and information. Despite the fact that I have no other proof of
credibility, I find this author to be suitable for my purposes.

This source is extensive but simple. It lists 52 activities that are appropriate for children
and located in Seattle, Washington. Within each recommendation, there is a description
of the activity, links to reviews, the activitys website, and sometimes directions. For
some of the listings, like for Pike Place Market, the author goes on to list more specific
events, places, and activities that one can experience since Pikes Place includes quite
a few different shops, restaurants, bars, and attractions. Since this is a blog post, there
are also comments at the end from a few casual readers.

The author seems to be writing this for informational purposes. Considering this
information is presented as a blog post, I do not think there is much else to it. Seattle
Anne simply lists out useful information that she wants to share with parents and
childcare givers looking for something to do in Seattle. The source also seems to be
clarifying information for the reader. Without this article, readers can find all of this
information given some time, but because the article is so organized and provides extra
information like reviews and websites, it makes things easier for the audience to both
understand and retrieve.

This article gives an answer to part of my CRQ, which looks for activities that parents
can do with their children to combat the possible adverse effects of screen time. It is an
excellent source for my project because it provides me with the information I need
regarding Seattle-based actives in an organized matter that I can then pass on to my
readers by linking or listing in my bibliography. This, combined with the article written by
Stacy Booth, will allow me to give my audience some non-screen time ideas in Seattle.

Mayo Clinic Staff. Screen time and children How to guide your child. Children's
Health. Mayo Clinic, 18 Nov 2016. Web. 9 April 2017

This sources creator, The Mayo Clinic Staff, seems to be credible. The specific authors
were not listed, but the writing in this article and the references listed push me to believe
that the writers were reputable. Also, the Mayo Clinic is known for providing useful
information regarding health and not for publishing articles that are inaccurate.

In this articles, the writers speak about the suggested screen time limits for varying child
age groups, published by the American Academy of Pediatrics. They go on to describe
some of the proven adverse effects of either too much screen time or poor quality
screen time. After describing effects of excessive screen time, the authors provide some
suggestions on how to capitalize screen time and give the right type of limitations for
children. In the end, they also explain how to create restrictions for older children and
teach them how to behave when online and using social media.

The author is merely attempting to provide some new information and recommendations
for parents to use with their children. They are not only giving screen time
recommendations but also information regarding why these limits are necessary by
describing the adverse effects of excessive screen time. The source also seems to be
compiling information. The authors efficiently accomplish their purpose by organizing
the information well. It appears to be clarifying and gathering some basic information
and research that already exists to make things easier for their audience. They use
headers, bullet lists, and give references to help their audience, who happen to be
parents, have an easy time reading and absorbing this information.

This article helps prove the information in some of my other sources by providing
research that demonstrates some adverse effects of screen time on children. It also
speaks about the need for unplugged, unstructured playtime which is what I am
looking for when writing my research paper. The parts that I expect to use from this
source are mostly related to the limitations suggested for the younger age groups. This
speaks about how to avoid the adverse effects that the other articles I have included,
like worse sleep that causes childhood obesity, according to the article written by Xu. I
think this article will also help me define my purpose a little more clearly when I utilize
the list of those adverse effects of excessive screen time.

Xu, Huilan, et al. Associations of outdoor play and screen time with nocturnal sleep
duration and pattern among young children. Acta Paediatrica. Volume 105,
Issue 3 (2016): 297-303. Wiley Online. Web. 9 April 2017

The sources creators, Huilan Xu, et al., seem to be as credible as it gets when
speaking about screen time and child development. They are all affiliated with the
Sydney School of Public Health at the University of Sydney in Australia. This, plus the
fact that a peer-reviewed journal published this article, makes me trust both the authors
methodology and their lack of bias.

Ultimately, the article describes the writers research process related to healthy sleep in
children related to their access to screen time and outdoor playtime. The article includes
an abstract, method, results, discussion and conclusion section, where they state their
findings. They say that "reducing screen time and increasing outdoor play time might
help improve childrens sleep. Afterward, they explain some of the benefits of good
sleep, which include combatting rising rates of childhood obesity. This type of writing
seems to be an efficient method for appealing to the authors audience, as this is what
those interested in scientific research expect of scientific writing.

The article seems to be looking at an already existing conversation and expanding on it.
The authors reference multiple pieces of research that talk about the adverse effects of
poor sleep on young children. The source takes that information and tries to find out if
screen time can cause poor sleep problems in children, and if outdoor time helps
promotes healthy sleeping. This article will help define my purpose and show why there
is a need to find outdoor activities for children, even though the information given isn't
entirely conclusive. I can combine this with the NPR article to provide more information
and research about the adverse effects of screen time and proof that outdoor time helps
children develop well, which pushes me to help Seattle parents find outdoor activities for
their young children.

Booth, Stacy. "26 Free or Cheap Things to Do in Seattle on a Rainy Day." Where
Traveler. www.wheretraveler.com. 16 January 2017. Web. 9 April 2017

The author of this article, Stacy Booth, is from Seattle and has written many articles
about things to do in Seattle, mostly related to restaurants and famous attractions. She
seems to be well versed in things to do in Seattle and is apparently a trusted source
since she is the Seattle Editor for the Where Traveler website. Since this is exactly the
type of information I need to complete my research project, this makes Booth a credible
enough writer for my purposes.

The author talks about things related to Seattle that one can do indoors on rainy or cold
days. She organizes her suggestions by three categories: Shopping & Eating, Beautiful
Buildings & Fantastic Views, and Museums & Theaters. Booth includes links to the
activities websites and some short descriptions. The best part about the quick
descriptions, in my opinion, is the Locals Tip section. These include suggestions that I
assume locals would provide regarding each activity or location. In the end, the author
includes a map with the attractions organized by location, where you can click and
obtain addresses, reviews, and directions through Google Maps.

The primary purpose of the article is to provide Booths readers with some compiled
information. As with some of my other sources, readers could find the information
presented even if Booth had not written this article. Despite this, the source is useful for
quickly obtaining and retaining the given information. Booth also provides links for all
suggestions, a few compelling photos of some of the destinations and a map at the end
for readers to utilize. The author is clearly building upon other sources to help readers
quickly obtain and use a long list of information.

This source complements the article written by Seattle Anne. While Seattle Annes
writing shows kid friendly Seattle activities, this gives indoor and free activity ideas. My
intention is to cross reference the two to find the best things for kids to do that are either
free or cheap and kid-friendly. Booth has written a good, extensive source that provides
invaluable information for my research project. I will use some suggestions specifically
but also link to activities for readers to use as they make their way through my research
paper.