Key takeaways for caregivers

• Co-sleeping, typically defined as infants sharing a room or a bed with parents, is common worldwide but varies in acceptability across cultures. It is practiced less in U.S. culture and parents vary widely in how they view it.
• Pediatric organizations (e.g., the American Academy of Pediatrics ) do not endorse bedsharing, and although the AAP does not appear averse to roomsharing per se, research in Western cultures has linked persistent co-sleeping (i.e.., bedsharing, roomsharing, or a combination of both) beyond six months to parent and infant issues.
• Our research found a link between co-sleeping and more sleep disturbances among parents, especially mothers, which may occur in any culture where co-sleeping occurs.
• Co-sleeping was also associated with greater co-parenting distress and poorer quality of bedtime parenting, which may be more likely in cultures where co-sleeping is less accepted.
• Infants’ sleep did not appear to be affected by co-sleeping.
• Decisions about co-sleeping with one’s infant are ultimately personal choices. If practiced, co-sleeping should be done safely, following AAP guidelines, and co-sleeping parents should take steps to nurture their relationship as a couple.

Article contents:

1. Questions about parent-infant sleep arrangements are complex
2. Do infant sleep arrangements relate to infant and parent sleep quality or parenting behaviors?
3. Parent-infant co-sleeping was linked to poorer maternal sleep and parenting issues
4. Effects of parent-infant co-sleeping are likely to be culturally specific
5. Promoting co-parenting and safe and healthy sleep may be most critical

1. Questions about parent-infant sleep arrangements are complex

How parents should structure their infants’ sleep and whether infants should sleep by themselves (in a separate room) or co-sleep with their parent(s) (i.e., in the same room or the same bed as the parent(s)) is a controversial, sensitive, and personal topic. At the heart of the matter are arguments about what is best for babies and beliefs about that vary widely.

These beliefs are informed by cultural prescriptions, recommendations from medical professionals who argue against bedsharing for safety reasons, evolutionary biologists who argue for bedsharing because it protects infants, individual parental beliefs, availability of sleep spaces and other practical considerations (e.g., convenience), and infants’ age.

Adding to the confusion and controversy, in Western cultures, infant sleep arrangements are fluid during the first year, with parents more likely to co-sleep soon after birth than later. This makes it more challenging to identify whether a family co-sleeps.

Photo: Sarah Chai. Pexels.

Choices about where infants should sleep and for how long may not be just about what is best for the baby, but also about what is best for the family.

Some studies suggest that parents who co-sleep with their infants may be at risk for marital and co-parenting distress. Parents, particularly mothers, who co-sleep with their infants also awaken more at night and have more sleep problems than do parents and infants who sleep in separate rooms.

2. Do infant sleep arrangements relate to infant and parent sleep quality or parenting behaviors?

Choices about infant sleep arrangements can be confusing and may be influenced by competing needs and demands. To better understand how parenting and infant and parent sleep affect family life, in our recent study, we examined sleep arrangement patterns across infants’ first six months of life.

We assessed 124 U.S. families when infants were one, three, and six months old. Most mothers and fathers were White (8%), married or living with a partner (95%), and in their 30s; 57% of the infants were girls.

Ninety-nine percent of parents had completed high school and about two-thirds had a bachelor’s degree or higher. Most fathers (89%) and mothers (61%) mothers worked full or part time when their babies were one month old; median yearly family income was $65,000.

To measure participants’ nighttime sleep, we used activity monitors (actigraphs) that parents wore on their wrists and put on infants’ calves at bedtime for seven consecutive days.

We also measured mothers’ emotional availability with their infants (e.g., warmth, sensitivity) during infants’ bedtimes (from video recordings made by parents).

Mothers also completed questionnaires to assess the quality of positive co-parenting (e.g., support and endorsement of one’s partner) and negative co-parenting (e.g., amount of conflict with and undermining by one’s partner). Infant sleep arrangements were determined from the video recordings of the infants at night.

It is parents’ sleep, and particularly mothers’ sleep, that may be affected most by co-sleeping.

3. Parent-infant co-sleeping was linked to poorer maternal sleep and parenting issues

From the video recordings when babies were three and six months old, we identified three patterns of sleep arrangement:

• Solitary sleeping (infants slept in a room separate from their parents at both ages),
• Co-sleeping (infants slept in the same room or the same bed as their parents at both ages)
• Co-sleeping to solitary sleeping (infants roomed with or shared a bed with a parent at three months and were moved to a room of their own by six months).

Babies who slept in the same room as their parents rarely spent all their time on a sleeping surface separate from their parents, even with a crib in the room. Videos showed that mothers frequently brought their babies to the parents’ bed in response to infants’ distress, with infants falling asleep in the parents’ bed without being immediately returned to the crib.

Consistent with other research, co-sleeping families were more likely than the other two groups to have lower socioeconomic status, be non-White and unemployed, and have fewer years of education.

We also saw patterns relating to duration of breastfeeding and parents’ symptoms of depression and anxiety. We used statistical techniques to consider those patterns and explore specific relations between co-sleeping and both sleep quality and co-parenting, finding that:

1. Mothers had poorer sleep quality if they co-slept. Fathers who co-slept with their infants experienced more varied sleep quality across the week than fathers whose infants slept alone.
2. Infants’ sleep quality was not related to sleeping arrangement at all.
3. Mothers reported less positive and more negative co-parenting, and were observed to be less emotionally available to their infants at bedtime.

Our results are consistent with other work showing that compared to non-co-sleeping, persistent co-sleeping is linked to poorer parental sleep, particularly mothers’ sleep, and with more co-parenting distress and less emotionally available parenting.

Photo: RDNE Stock project. Pexels.

Our finding that infants’ sleep was unrelated to sleep arrangement indicates that it is parents’ sleep, particularly mothers’ sleep, that may be affected most by co-sleeping. This does not bode well for long-term maternal well-being: Chronic sleep problems can increase individuals’ risk for depression, which can affect relationships with other family members.

4. Effects of parent-infant co-sleeping are likely to be culturally specific

Our study was done in the United States, a culture that, by and large, does not support persistent co-sleeping. Parents who engage in persistent co-sleeping in a culture that does not support it may be criticized for engaging in a practice some consider harmful to babies – despite that fact that our study did not find any negative associations between co-sleeping and infant sleep.

Such criticism is based solely on the tendency of members of a culture to accept a cultural prescription as “the right thing to do” without supporting evidence. Researchers should replicate our study in a culture in which co-sleeping is more accepted to determine whether findings are similar or different.

When co-sleeping is culturally embraced, parents who co-sleep are less likely to be criticized by family members and friends.

We suspect that the link that we found between co-sleeping and heightened sleep disturbances among parents, especially mothers, would be culturally ubiquitous, but the links among co-sleeping, co-parenting distress, and reduced maternal emotional availability with infants at bedtime would not.

This is because sleeping near one’s infant is likely to affect parents’ sleep, regardless of the cultural backdrop. In contrast, the association of co-sleeping with heightened family stress should be less likely when co-sleeping is culturally accepted.

For example, when co-sleeping is culturally embraced, parents who co-sleep are less likely to be criticized by family members and friends.

Photo: Kevin Liang. Unsplash.

5. Promoting co-parenting and safe and healthy sleep may be most critical

Do these findings lead us to recommend that parents not co-sleep with their infants?

Assuming parents follow medical recommendations for safe sleep (e.g., the AAP guidelines; i.e., avoiding bedsharing, eliminating loose bedding and clothing, and placing infants in a supine position on the sleeping surface), we do not make such a broad recommendation.

Although our study’s co-sleeping parents as a group appeared to be at higher risk for family distress than were parents who slept without their babies, even when they said they preferred to co-sleep, some parents who co-sleep did not experience heightened co-parenting distress, nor were they less emotionally available to their infants at bedtime than parents of infants who slept alone.

It appeared that these parents were on board with their choice of sleep arrangement. The parents’ relationship with each other was not compromised, which suggests that they took time to nurture their relationship as a couple (e.g., not just in terms of co-parenting but by making time for themselves and each other) and that co-sleeping with their infants did not interfere.

Thus, to the extent that parents are aware that co-sleeping can interfere with their sleep and their relationship as a couple, and take steps to promote each other’s sleep and their relationship with each other, the choice to co-sleep may not be at all problematic. We did not conduct interviews or collect information about this idea and believe it would be an important question to explore.

The post Infant-parent co-sleeping: What do sleep arrangements mean for families? appeared first on Child and Family Blog.

• A strong sense of identity can help children and youth build resilience and self-esteem to cope with challenges.
• Cultural identity is particularly impactful for young people who face adversities, such as Australian Aboriginal youth.
• Obstacles to building a strong cultural identity include repercussions of the history of colonization and racism, as well as distance from cultural learning in modern urban life.
• Cultural identity and being Aboriginal should be seen as assets, and schools are one context where these can be cultivated.

Article contents:

1. Australia’s Aboriginal youth face significant cultural challenges
2. Building cultural identity strengthens Aboriginal children
3. It is important to maintain cultural identity when children are young
4. Cultural identity combats adversity
5. The many barriers to transferring identity
6. Obstacles to learning within families
7. Difficulties of maintaining cultural identity at school

1. Australia’s Aboriginal youth face significant cultural challenges

How do we help children thrive when they face a hostile environment – racism at school, in daily interactions, and in almost every aspect of their public lives?

This is a crucial question, particularly if a key protective factor – connection to their own culture – is weakened by public institutions that fail, however inadvertently, to value such connections, and when past experiences have left families fragmented and adults also struggle to cope.

These questions are acute for Australia’s Aboriginal children. Many of their parents and grandparents were traumatized. Not until 1977 did the Australian government end the practice of forcibly removing Aboriginal children – the Stolen Generation – from their families, placing them in missions to assimilate with non-Aboriginal people.

Indeed, it was only in 1968, following a referendum, that Aboriginal people were classified as human beings and counted in the Census.

How do we ensure that children today develop well when the chronic symptoms of colonization – and its subsequent fracturing of Aboriginal existence – endure: alcoholism, drug dependency, poverty, self-harm, suicide, mental illness, and incarceration of family members?

On top of that, Aboriginal children continue to experience high levels of racism. For example, in a study in a Western Australian town, 75% of Aboriginal children and youth aged 11-17 years experienced racism that they wanted to stop, and 74% were too scared to walk around the town (Kickett-Tucker et al, 2018).

2. Building cultural identity strengthens Aboriginal children

Very young (aged 6-12) Aboriginal children still encounter racism. Some have reported scrubbing their bodies to remove their dark skin.

One vital response to these challenges is to build a young person’s identity.

Research shows that the identity of Aboriginal children usually equates with being recognized as the first people of Australia, with identity defined as connection to country (place), family, kinship, language, culture, and importantly, traditional rights to heritage, history and lands.

Research also indicates that building such an identity is an all-encompassing, holistic way to support any child to grow and thrive. But it is a particularly effective and culturally safe way to address the daily costs of historic injustices and the realities of modern-day racism. It can enable young Aboriginal people to take a steady and sturdy journey to adulthood and support other key points in their life transitions. 

3. It is important across cultures to maintain cultural identity during youth 

The prescription to maintain a strong, positive identity is important during youth across all cultures, according to developmental psychology. It helps create functioning, well-rounded individuals, and boosts positive social and emotional well-being.

A robust identity empowers individuals to acknowledge, respect, and define their purpose and role in life, helping them understand who they are and how they relate to others. Research suggests that the transition from childhood to adolescence and into early adulthood is a vital time for interaction with – and formation of – identity, though identity continues to develop across the lifespan. 

4. Cultural identity combats adversity

A strong identity is particularly important for children who face adversity. It helps them develop resilience, which promotes the skills, knowledge, and confidence needed to overcome and cope with life’s challenges.

Individuals gain control over their own well-being which has a positive impact on their self-esteem. In a study of First Nations’ youth in Canada, a strong racial identity was a protective factor against self-harm and suicide.

Having a strong Aboriginal identity and self-esteem is like the hub of a wheel. Without the hub, the wheel can go nowhere. Like a hub, racial identity is at the center of an Aboriginal child’s well-being. It is their spirit and without it, they can be steered by outside forces that determine how fast to go and in which direction to travel.

5. The many barriers to transferring identity

But transferring and bolstering Aboriginal identity is fraught with difficulty. The experiences of the Stolen Generation painfully disturbed identity in older groups, undermining their connection with land, kin, spirituality, and culture.

Chris Jackamarra, one of those affected, explained: “The mission taught us that we were white, but they never taught us to be prepared for what was out in the world. That there was racial prejudice, stereotype casting and things like that. We were robbed of our identity and culture and that bothered me. It is something I was never taught and I am still just learning it now.”

In my research, I have identified very young (aged 6-12) Aboriginal children who still encounter racism. Some have reported scrubbing their bodies to remove their dark skin.

Schools should be culturally audited for how well they respect, understand, maintain, and teach about Aboriginal identities.

6. Obstacles to learning within families

Many modern-day obstacles stand in the way of transferring Aboriginal identity.

Understanding what it is to be Aboriginal involves observational learning by a child, including sitting and waiting with elders. In this situation, an elder carries out an activity, a child models it, and the elder continues the activity until the child has done it in culturally appropriate ways.

The activity might be burning fur off a kangaroo tail and cooking it under the ashes. It might be collecting berries and fruit products. Out in the bush, Aboriginal people look for bush medicine.

Food is vital and many activities take place around a campfire. But today, Aboriginal people, who typically live in urban centers, are not allowed to make fires because of the risk of bush fires. They lack money for gas and few have cars to travel to the bush, leaving many stuck in the city.

Moreover, many Aboriginal people are very poor. If they live in state-provided housing, there are rules about how many people can be together under one roof, and neighbors can report anyone who violates the rules.

7. Difficulties of maintaining cultural identity at school

Schools have a long way to go before they are truly focused on Aboriginal children. Government funding is provided for Aboriginal education, but there is disparity between what is awarded to schools and the sums that are actually spent by schools on Aboriginal pupils’ education. Even less is spent to support the cultural identity of Aboriginal children and youth.

School leaders and teachers have some understanding that they should do something beyond just acknowledging the importance of Aboriginal culture, but ambivalence about teaching Indigenous languages persists. Aboriginal parents are rarely invited to help co-create curricula or inform teaching practices in ways that are culturally relevant.

Simple school practices could make a difference, signalling a shift in perceptions so that being Aboriginal is recognized as an asset, rather than a challenge. For example, when the Aboriginal flag is raised at school, an Aboriginal child should lead the flag raise alongside another student.

Each school assembly should begin with a welcome in an Indigenous language. Traditional authorities – local elders – should be invited regularly to attend assemblies. Schools should be culturally audited for how well they respect, understand, maintain, and teach about Aboriginal identities.

These recommendations are just the beginning of big changes that need to occur to develop and support Aboriginal identity in children. Aboriginal children and youth need these actions to protect them in a world that is often hostile and damaging.

The post Maintaining cultural identity: Key to children’s development, particularly for Australia’s Aboriginal children appeared first on Child and Family Blog.

• Determining which children are in vulnerable situations and need assistance requires identifying the risk factors that they face.
• Helping street children involves bolstering protective factors that can reduce the impacts of the risks.
• Effective interventions to help at-risk children must be practical and flexible to their different needs, and should involve people, institutions, and systems that care about and support them.

Research on Brazil’s street children needs to meet the children where they are

What is one simple thing street children would like to improve their lives? When we asked street children in Brazil, we wondered if they would talk about iPhones, new clothes, or sneakers. But the children did not focus on material things. Many asked for “somewhere I can put my stuff.” Others requested “a place that’s my own, hidden from the world.” They were searching for privacy, because when you live on the streets, everything is public.

Sometime later, my friend, the director of a Brazilian children’s shelter, sought my advice. “We can’t keep the children off the street. They come and they are gone. We can’t keep them safe when they don’t come back every night. What can I do?” My suggestion was to give each child a locker and a key. “You can keep spare keys in the office, but promise me you will not search inside those lockers,” I advised.

We know from developmental psychology that every child needs someone who really cares about them.

A month later I returned. “Are you a magician?” my friend laughed. The children were coming back at night to stay at the shelter. Later, we learned what they were storing on those shelves. Just simple things: Some shampoo, pieces of paper, a document. Having a little privacy, in the form of a tiny locker, made all the difference to where the children spent the night.

This example highlights why, for more than 30 years, our teams of researchers studying Brazil’s street children have focused on leaving our ivory towers. We must understand the lives of street children to identify interventions that genuinely support their development. In the vast academic learning about child development, we must find what is relevant to their lives and translate this combined, well-evidenced understanding into effective, practical interventions.

Defining street children

We studied children of all ages in Brazilian urban areas. In our work, we have learned a lot – about terminology, children’s needs, and impactful interventions – thanks to our research teams, many collaborators, and mentors. First, we realized that conventional definitions of street children were at best inadequate and often wrong. They tended to focus on key activities, such as begging or wiping windshields, where children slept, or their family ties. But these definitions did not fit well and they did not inform effective interventions.

We seldom found children who had completely lost contact with family. Sleeping locations also blurred the picture: Some lived at home and worked on the streets, occasionally sleeping there. Others periodically slept on the streets for weeks but then returned home.

Photo provided by the author.

Instead, we categorize children around the risks they face (e.g., contact with gangs, use of drugs, sexual exploitation) and the programs and people available to protect them (e.g., school attendance, supportive social networks, contact with caring adults). Through this approach, we draw on what is known about the impacts of exposing vulnerable children to developmental risks.

We also shine a light on factors that already exist to protect them. This helps us identify actions tailored to each child, based on well-evidenced knowledge. It means that in our work, we combine the insights of rigorous developmental science with in-depth understanding of street children’s lives.

Find one person who really cares about the child

We know from developmental psychology that every child needs someone who really cares about them. But what does that mean for street children? Most do have relationships with family members. But many of those relationships have big problems, including abusive behavior. These children know that their home is not a place to be all the time.

School attachment is a very important protective factor, particularly for youth in their early teens, for both girls and boys.

They are also smart. They understand how to find people who can take care of them. We have found many people in institutions and shelters who recognize this central childhood need and will play a protective, constant role in children’s lives. It is important to build on these opportunities for children.

School is vital in this respect. In our research, school attachment is a very important protective factor, particularly for youth in their early teens, for both girls and boys. This finding highlights the crucial role that schools can play, but they must be ready to embrace these children.

Street children want to go to school

Some people say street children do not want to go to school or learn. That is not true. It is not easy for them. They do not have someone who wakes them every morning to go to school. They lack paper, notebooks, and pencils, as well as a place to keep school supplies for the next day.

In addition, street children can face prejudice from other students and teachers. Surviving on the street requires constant vigilance to potential dangers, so maintaining self-discipline and concentration at school can be difficult. But given the chance, most street children we have met love school. They want to go. But they need an open school, not a place where they have to arrive at exactly 8 a.m. The school has to be flexible and welcoming: Maybe they get there at 9. There should be some breakfast for them.

We have also learned about psychological interventions that support children who have experienced trauma. For example, we know that group therapy can be highly effective, especially for girls who have experienced sexual exploitation, but it is less helpful for boys, who may be less able to confide in groups and may need more one-to-one approaches.

In conclusion – doing good, but accidentally doing harm

Finally, we have found that services and institutions that strive to bring children off the street sometimes unintentionally achieve the opposite. Some children told us that, to access care institutions and services, they had to “pretend” they were street children, giving that identity a high status. Instead of slowing the migration of children to the street, these institutions were actually propelling children to street life. We had to go to the directors of these institutions and advise them to change their approach.

And they did. They introduced more rules and expectations around what the children should be doing, such as attending certain programs and bringing a responsible adult with them, so they did not just come in for new clothes and disappear again. They were genuinely off the streets.

Perhaps one of the most important lessons we have learned from our innovative approach is that traditional research techniques, which usually have academics observing and then walking away with their findings, are not ethical in this environment. We are always asking: “How can we learn from and inform practitioners? How can we contribute to the well-being of these children, right here, now, in front of us?” We must be wary never to exploit the misery of the many for our own personal academic advancement.

The post Brazil and its street children – understanding the needs of street children appeared first on Child and Family Blog.

Key takeaways for caregivers

• Self-regulation – the ability to monitor and manage behaviors and emotions – is a critical aspect of early childhood development.
• Television viewing is associated with lower levels of self-regulation, or greater levels of dysregulation, in young children, especially difficulties in attention and self-soothing.
• The specific impact of TV exposure on dysregulation may differ across cultures, perhaps stemming from different cultural or family practices around TV viewing experiences.
• Parents and caregivers should limit TV viewing for young children, but can also consider how to help their child understand and engage with high-quality programming.

What should parents know about the risks of television viewing for young children?

Exposure to television and other digital media is frequently discussed and often discouraged, but many parents and caregivers might wonder, “What is the harm?” and “Is all television bad?” The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommends that digital media be avoided for children under 18 months, with the exception of video chatting. For parents who wish to introduce digital media between 18 and 24 months, the AAP advises choosing “high-quality programming” (American Academy of Pediatrics, 2016).

However, as we progress further in the digital age, children are being introduced to many forms of media at younger ages. Television and other electronic devices may serve as “electronic babysitters,” especially for infants and young children whose temperaments are considered “difficult.”

Additionally, much more media is being targeted to the youngest age groups. Another facet to consider is the nuances of digital media, such as different types of programming and devices (e.g., TV, tablet, cell phone). What, specifically, should parents and caregivers be concerned about? 

Photo: Lars Plougmann. Creative Commons.

Television viewing and the development of self-regulation in young children

When it comes to the impact of early television exposure, concerns regarding reactivity and self-regulation are notable. Reactivity describes the intensity of our response to our world, such as how strongly we feel excitement or fear, or how strongly we react to sensory information (e.g., sights and sounds). Regulation is the processes of monitoring and managing reactivity to the world around us and our internal experiences. This includes how we express emotion, where we put our attention, and how we think about and change our thinking (see Rothbart et al., 2000, for a review).

In early infancy, we rely on others to help us regulate, such as by soothing us. However, as we mature, we gain more independence and the capacity to regulate ourselves. Self-regulation helps children learn, engage with others, and gain independence. When reactivity (e.g., anger/frustration or fearfulness) is elevated and regulation abilities are low, dysregulation can occur. 

Studying the links between children’s TV exposure and dysregulation across cultures

We conducted a study to determine whether exposure to television contributes to deficits in regulation in young children. Early childhood is a foundational period for the development of self-regulation, and television exposure is thought to disrupt related processes. In some studies, frequent TV exposure during and before toddlerhood has been associated with an increased risk of language delays, attention difficulties, and disruptions in the development of executive functioning (e.g., working memory, inhibition, problem-solving skills).

We also examined whether links between early childhood television exposure and regulation development differ across cultures. While children around the world are exposed to TV in early childhood, associated risks may not be universal. Different socialization and cultural aspects of the environment can lead to differences in the development of reactivity and regulation.

Our research suggests that higher levels of dysregulation are associated with more television viewing in young children, with soothability and attention problems being the most commonly affected.

For example, several cross-cultural studies have found differences in children’s inhibitory control (controlling urges), soothability (ability to calm down or recover from stress), cuddliness (willingness to be cuddled), attention (ability to focus and redirect), low intensity pleasure (ability to enjoy quiet and calm activities), surgency (positive affect), and negative emotionality (tendency to show negative emotions).

Given these cross-cultural differences in regulation, it is critical to understand how variability in TV exposure across cultures contributes to subsequent behavioral and emotional difficulties. We conducted an international investigation of television exposure in toddlers (approximately 15 months to 41 months old) in 14 countries: Belgium, Brazil, Chile, China, Finland, Italy, Mexico, the Netherlands, Romania, Russia, Turkey, South Korea, Spain, and the United States.

Using a variety of measures, we asked parents to answer questions about their child’s daily activities, including how much time their child spends watching television each day. We also asked parents to answer questions about their child’s temperament, including reactivity and regulation. 

Photo: William Fortunato. Pexels.

Cross-cultural links among television exposure, attention problems, and soothability

Overall, we found that increased time spent watching television was associated with more dysregulation. That is, the more time toddlers spent watching television, the lower ratings parents provided on measures of regulation.

However, links between TV exposure and both attention problems (difficulty shifting or maintaining attention) and soothability (the ease with which the child could self-soothe or be soothed by others) varied significantly between cultures. For example, compared to children from other cultures, for Spanish toddlers, time spent watching TV was less strongly associated with dysregulation, whereas for Dutch children, time spent watching TV was more strongly associated with problems with soothability and attention problems.

While our study did not investigate the causes of these differences, some cultures may offer protective mechanisms that buffer against adverse effects of TV exposure. For example, many Spanish families watch television together, with TV-related activities constituting one element of family time, rather than relying on TV as an electronic babysitter.

This practice could stem from the central theme of familismo that is traditionally valued by individuals from Hispanic cultures, and includes strong attachment, loyalty, reciprocity, and solidarity among families (Diaz-Loving & Draguns, 1999). Researchers should examine more closely this concept as well as other possible protective effects.

How to reduce the negative impacts of television viewing for young children

Our research suggests that higher levels of dysregulation are associated with more television viewing in young children, with soothability and attention problems being the most commonly affected. These findings add to previous studies that have shown that even background television can have negative impacts on children’s play and parent-child interactions by decreasing attention and active engagement in both children and parents.

Thus, any potential benefits of television stimulation as a new source of entertainment and distraction for young children appear short lived, with likely adverse effects in the long term. Some benefits of educational programming have been reported across cultures; however, these generally show up later in childhood, after children have developed foundational self-regulation skills.

Television viewing might affect children differently depending on a variety of environmental factors, including cultural and familial customs.

Together, the research shows that limiting television exposure could help limit certain aspects of dysregulation. Yet television viewing might affect children differently depending on a variety of environmental factors, including cultural and familial customs. When families or younger children watch TV, some protective factors may emerge through cultural differences, such as the possibility that some cultures incorporate family engagement into television use.

In summary, it is important to consider not only the age when children engage with media content but also how they contextualize it and how it fits into their world. Television programming could be developed to provide more developmentally appropriate stimulation to young children, especially when paired with parental engagement and application to real-world experiences.

Thus, it is important to monitor the amount and type of programming children are watching and how they are engaging with television. It is also important for parents and caregivers to talk about and teach children how TV programming can be meaningful in their daily lives.

The post Considering the impacts of television exposure on toddlers’ dysregulation: Does culture matter? appeared first on Child and Family Blog.

Start with acknowledging and celebrating the diversity of Latinx families and communities

The past 20 years have seen dramatic shifts in the location of Latinx communities, stretching beyond traditional jurisdictions in California, Texas, and New York into areas that are much less familiar with their needs and cultures. Indeed, the label “Latinx” does not capture the diversity of Latinx-identifying families and individuals born and raised in the United States versus recent and earlier arrivals who hail from different countries of origin and heritages, and who are fluent in different Spanish dialects and indigenous languages. (Latinx is a gender-neutral term used in the United States to refer to Latino/Hispanic individuals of Latin American or Caribbean heritage.)

This diversity can sometimes overwhelm rigid and unfamiliar systems, which can contribute to frustration, confusion, and tensions in receiving communities. Correspondingly, fear and distrust among Latinx populations and between Latinx populations and other groups can escalate. What may actually be misinformation or confusion among Latinx parents can be internalized as failure. In reality, Latinx parents bring with them hope, optimism, a sense of family cohesion, and a strong work ethic, which are key strengths that support children’s success.

Three key strengths: Optimism, work ethic, and family cohesion

It is hard to overstate the optimism that Latinx immigrants have today and have always had when they arrive in the United States. They feel they have had to risk everything, leaving behind family and the life they knew to move to a better life, one filled with hope of economic opportunity and promise for their children’s futures. This optimism carries them through difficult times. Such positivity protects their well-being and mental health and drives success.

Service and public infrastructure such as transportation, internet access, and schools can be extended in ways that capitalize on co-location of community organizations and neighborhoods that parents trust.

Optimism is just one of many strengths Latinx families bring with them, whether they are born in the United States or are recent immigrants. Their capacities include a strong work ethic, with many Latinx parents working long hours and producing high-quality output, rarely missing work or calling in sick, often at the risk of losing earned income and with no mechanism for recourse in case of injury or emergency.

This strong work ethic goes hand in hand with an equally strong commitment to their children, ensuring that they receive proper nutrition and feel safe, and attending to their children’s learning and education. As in all families, Latinx parents balance the competing demands of being a worker and a parent, and ensure that their children get not only resources but also their time.

Family cohesion is the hallmark of adapting and thriving in the United States. Latinx families provide love and support for each other in the form of social and financial capital. The strong family bond can protect them from adversity and provides a personal safety net that helps the family not only survive, but in many cases, thrive. An integral part of the family is the belief that children thrive when raised by two parents—mothers and fathers.

Photo: David Beoulve. Creative Commons.

Fathers’ role is not only to provide financially for their children, but also to be there for them and be involved in day-to-day parenting. Latinx fathers have a strong commitment to their family and their children, and their involvement in their lives matters for the development of children’s basic language and social skills. Fathers and mothers also co-parent and combine resources to ensure that their children have more opportunities than they had. 

Celebrating learning and education

The value placed on education and learning is infused throughout stages of child development, as demonstrated during children’s earliest years. Both Latinx mothers and fathers engage in active storytelling which is sustained through support of formal schooling.

Investments in early education in the United States have yielded high enrollment in programs serving preschool-age Latinx children, and the benefits to Latinx children, including dual language learners, sometimes outpace those of other groups of  children. Families also benefit from the role early education and care play in supporting parenting, access to other resources in the community, and connections to social networks.

The strong Latino parent work ethic goes hand in hand with an equally strong commitment to their children. As in all families, Latinx parents balance the competing demands of being a worker and a parent, and ensure that their children get not only resources but also their time.

Indeed, Latinx fourth and fifth graders’ math and reading achievement has increased over time, as have Latinx high school graduation rates and subsequent enrolment in post-secondary education programs. When researchers visit Latinx homes, parents ask about where and how they can purchase the educational toys used to observe children’s play. It is not unusual for young children to ask their teachers for more books to bring home from school, declaring: “One is for me, and one is for Mom.” Modelling good behavior is a tool parents use to inculcate in their children a love of learning, with many parents “doing homework” with their children. Family members, and sometimes entire communities, come together to participate in and witness schooling milestones, such as graduations.

Educational preparedness for many Latinx children includes fluency in two languages, mastering English and Spanish. Schools that embrace equity-oriented practices – including strategies to facilitate family engagement and family-school partnerships, and extended learning opportunities – have reduced disparities in Latinx students’ school progress compared to peers.

A foundation of good health

Across many metrics of children’s health, Latinx children fare well, notably in low rates of infant mortality. Latinx parents care deeply about the health of their children and the foundation that good health provides for their children’s educational attainment and economic opportunities. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Latinx families, like many other families, expressed concern about the social isolation and mental health of their children. They also experienced high rates of economic, food, and housing insecurities, which threatened the well-being of their children.

Yet their abilities to meet the physical and mental health needs of their children are often hindered by structural barriers to medical care, public services, and other resources needed to support children’s well-being. As one example, 12 states, many in the U.S. South, have chosen not to expand Medicaid, a health insurance program for low-income persons. Even with insurance, Latinx families can face a variety of barriers to care, including limited time off from work to obtain medical care, limited access to transportation, and a lack of culturally and linguistically appropriate services in the communities in which they live.

Pandemic challenges

Optimism can wear thin when families are faced with health risks and economic uncertainty over a prolonged period. During the first few months of the pandemic, the mental health of Latinx parents was initially buoyed by their optimism and strong co-parenting support, but high rates of unemployment, especially among Latina parents, reduced household income. Not all eligible Latinx families received pandemic-related government assistance.

Although most Latinx families did their best to keep children engaged in learning activities at home, Latinx children’s learning suffered because they did not receive the support they needed for education transmitted remotely or online. Latinx children did not have consistent access to technology or equipment, such as extra iPads or laptops. In some cases, children missed online testing because digitally accessible equipment, including a smart phone, was shared by an entire household. 

As Latinx parents struggled to cope with extra demands, Latinx teens and young adults were expected to help their younger siblings with learning.

Photo: Jhon David. Unsplash.

Opportunity for policy investment and the price of policy failure

These and other stories speak to Latinx family strengths. How can these strengths of optimism, work ethic, and family cohesion be harnessed – and not undermined – by investments in education, health care, and child care policy?

Latinx children arrive at formal schooling curious and eager to learn. Although Latinx children quickly catch up to their peers in some academic domains, lack of support for their home language and cultural barriers contribute to dashed hopes and disillusionment with educational opportunities. As economic pressures on the family, youth are forced to disengage from the educational system as they face competing demands, including working to financially support their family or sharing in the responsibility of raising younger siblings. This path can lead to lost years of formal education.

Child care providers have difficulty accommodating the complexities of work schedules among some Latinx parents, and early education and care arrangements are not always culturally responsive, lacking support for Spanish-speaking or dual-language parents and children and failing to adequately accommodate children with special needs. The supply of child care slots is low, resulting in fewer options to reconcile work and parenting commitments.

Many Latinx families with children are left out of health insurance because of discrimination against individuals whose immigration status is not regularized. Latina adolescents have some of the highest rates of depression and suicide attempts in the United States. Longer-term consequences are documented in poor cardiovascular health, diabetes, and suboptimal functioning in adulthood.

When family cohesion faces such stressors, how far can the safety net it provides its members be stretched before it snaps? It is hard to know precisely. Low-wage work is deeply problematic, setting tight limits on what parents can do for their children. When a mother works two or three jobs, who cares for her children? When can a mother or father engage with the school if they are both working long hours? When is there time to navigate the health care system?

How can parents ensure that child care is good? If work is unreliable and unstable, with no benefits and few hours required on short notice, children may have to be placed in three or four different child care arrangements. Typically, there is no formal child care on weekends, so low-paid Latinx families are forced into an informal network of supports, some of which are not of very high quality.

How do parents square the circle of wanting to spend loving time with their children and earning enough money to feed their family? One father we know works three jobs, getting home at 11 pm every night. His two-year-old naps until 10:30 pm, then is wakened so she can play with her father for half an hour – but she is tired the next day.

A manifesto for change

It is time for public programs and services to re-envision their engagement with Latinx families and support Latinx children’s paths to success. They must also respect the rights of Latinx individuals: Most young children of immigrants are U.S.-born, thus have rights and privileges equal to all other U.S. citizens such that their parents’ immigration status is not a barrier.

Service and public infrastructure more generally—including transportation, internet access and schools—can also be extended in ways that capitalize on co-location of community organizations and neighborhoods that parents trust. Community schools have proven their worth in, for example, improving access to children’s health care and reducing the administrative burden on hard-pressed parents of accessing other services.

Latinx families bring such strengths – so much energy, skill, and commitment – to raising their children well. A public commitment to policies and practices that harness and align with these strengths can go a long way to recouping returns to investments.

The post Investing in the strengths of Latinx families and children appeared first on Child and Family Blog.

Where are the teachers? Although they remain in the background, they have an important role: to be close and attentive observers who document the ongoing learning processes by taking pictures or videos. This documentation is later combined with drawings by the children expressing what they found interesting during the day so they can reflect together about the experience. Importantly, this practice is child directed, that is, it is driven by the children’s interests and fascinations.

Problems with reflective practices at school

This exercise in child agency – known as the progressive pedagogical approach “Anji Play” – highlights how children can learn about the world and test their capabilities in a self-directed manner. In doing so, the learners enhance their proficiency in a skill that is a central human challenge – understanding how to survive in an uncertain and often volatile world. The reflective practices aid in consolidating experiences and making sense of surprising events. Such skill development is helpful for children at any age.

“Reflection is triggered by an unusual or perplexing situation or experience . . . the element of surprise is of critical importance.”

Contrast these experiences to those in most schools, where reflective practices look very different. At a typical school, students are often bored by questioning at the end of an exercise which asks them to write what they have learned during the day. In our research, we find that such reflection prompts rarely lead the student to wonder about issues that have yet to be resolved. Instead of eliciting meaningful reflection, these prompts often result in a guessing game where students try to gauge what the teacher might want to hear from them. For many students, the word reflection becomes a term with negative associations.

“I really hate doing , they are boring, and usually formatted in an uncreative way,” explained one student. “And sometimes these are questions that are extremely hard to answer or formulated in a weird way. Too many questions!”

Reflection has become a key concept in formal education

Student antipathy to such “reflections” may seem ironic since reflection has become a cornerstone of education in the 21^st century. Across the world, numerous commissions, organizations, and state educational boards have highlighted reflection as a standard and a skill toward which students, as well as teachers, should strive. Yet there is little agreement over what reflection really is and how best to facilitate it.

The scientific literature on reflection (and especially the work by Russell Rogers) offers a couple of key insights. It suggests that reflection is triggered by an unusual or perplexing situation or experience and requires active engagement on the part of the individual. It involves examining one’s responses, beliefs, and premises in light of the situation at hand and results in integrating the new understanding into one’s experience. We believe that the first of these insights – the element of surprise – is of critical importance.

Photo: caterooni. Creative Commons.

The brain as a prediction machine

In recent years, researchers in computational neuroscience have approached the question of how the brain works in new ways. They start with the premise that the brain is a prediction machine. An essential function of the brain is trying to predict the future – what will happen next. As the brain makes predictions about the world and takes note of whether these predictions match what actually happens, it gradually learns about the world, getting better at predicting it.

“We need to create opportunities for learners to be genuinely surprised . . . Play and open-ended activities are great ways to do this.”

This is where play and reflection come in. When children (and also adults) play, they experiment and test options at the edges of their knowledge. In doing so, the brain and play enhance proficiency in a skill that is a central human challenge – understanding how to survive in an uncertain and frequently volatile world. Being better at prediction means that we expend as little energy as possible trying to interpret a world that sends an exhausting stream of information to us. This is a central element of reflection: the conscious processing of surprise.

How can we use these insights to facilitate meaningful reflection? Our research offers five lessons:

1. Invite surprise into the classroom

If surprise elicits reflection, we need to create opportunities for learners to be genuinely surprised. This entails shifting agency toward the learner by designing learning environments that are open ended. Play and open-ended activities are great ways to do this because they allow for easy entry points to get started. They also provide an opportunity to reach sophisticated levels of complexity. For inspirations on how to begin, see Mitch Resnik’s book “Lifelong Kindergarten” and the Pedagogy of Play website.

2. Be clear about the purpose of reflection

Ask yourself why you want students to reflect in the first place. Are you trying to gain access to their thought processes or do you want students to consolidate their knowledge on a given subject matter? Remember that asking students to share their thinking with you will alter their reflective processes.

3. Think about reflection as an ongoing process

Surprises occur all the time, not just at the end of a lesson. Think about reflection throughout the learning process, not just as an exit-ticket exercise. To help students reflect in a more ongoing manner, at the beginning of class, you might ask students about what they already know and what their expectations are. This can also help make changes in their thinking visible and allow them to revisit their earlier assumptions later. The “I used to think – now I think” thinking routine, developed by Project Zero, is a useful exercise in this regard.

4. Recognize that students can reflect in more than one way

Reflection can be facilitated beyond language. Reflection exercises can also involve drawing or building things. Nonverbal reflection practices can support second-language learners, who may struggle with constructing the past, present, and future sentences needed to talk about changes in experiences.

5. Work with your learning community to define reflection

It is helpful to develop a shared understanding of reflection — and language around it — in your community. Consider the word ‘reflection’ as a group and make your individual and shared understandings visible. Remember that reflective practices, as well as play, are embedded in the larger cultural context. Norms of how, and what, we reflect upon are set by our local community. Bringing people – especially those from a diverse background – together in a shared understanding of reflection is a vital nurturing ground to develop meaningful reflective practices.

The Project Zero Thinking Routine Toolbox provides helpful starting points for facilitating such a conversation. For younger learners, be sure to look into the Teaching Tool “Cracking Open Words.”

The post Creating effective environments for learning reflection through play appeared first on Child and Family Blog.

Why might Latina teenagers spend more time with family? We studied data from the American Time Use Survey (ATUS) between 2003 and 2019, and found that differences in household structure, family structure, youth’s work hours, parents’ education, parents’ work, and geographic region could not fully explain differences in time Latinos’/as’ time spent with family versus with peers.

“Extra time with family, especially for Latina youth, could be due to differences in attitudes and values related to familismo and marianismo.”

Instead, we believe the extra time with family, especially for Latina youth, could be due to differences in attitudes and values related to familismo and marianismo. Familismo attitudes place a high value on family closeness, cohesion, and reciprocity. Marianismo involves the belief that girls should be nurturing and self-sacrificing for family.

Extra time with family, especially for Latina youth, could also be both an asset and a constraint. Several studies show that when familismo is strong, there is likely to be less family conflict, lower adolescent-parent conflict, more tight-knit families, and fewer suicide attempts. Yet, extra time with family could be a constraint on Latino/a youth if familismo values such as spending time together are not shared between parents and children or if time with family is burdensome or overwhelming. Additionally, extra time with family could be detrimental if it entails saying no to opportunities outside the household, such as educational or extracurricular activities, or even going to college away from home.

Other findings from our research

In our analysis of the ATUS from 2003 to 2019, we examined daily family contact patterns –  the total daily minutes spent with both nuclear and extended family – among Latino/a 15- to 18 year-olds. For the sake of comparison, we also included Black and White youth of the same age. Opportunities for family time may depend on who lives in the household, so we focused on youth who had focal family members (e.g., siblings, grandparents) living in their households.

On average, Latino/a youth spent more time with their parents than did Black youth, and more time with siblings than did both White and Black youth. Latino boys spent less time with parents, but more time with siblings, than did White boys.

“It may be time to reconsider what we think of as a “typical” U.S. teenager who distances themselves from family.”

Our analysis yielded some unexpected results: We thought Latino/a youth in immigrant households would spend more time with family than Latino/a youth whose parents were born in the United States, yet we found no such differences. Latino boys in immigrant households did spend more time with siblings but also spent less time with household adult relatives than Latino boys in non-immigrant households. We also thought Latino/a youth might spend more time with extended family than their White and Black counterparts did, but we found few racial/ethnic differences in time with extended families among the three groups.

The post Latina teenagers in United States spend more time with parents and siblings than other teenagers do appeared first on Child and Family Blog.

This means that gestures or “hand work” have an important role in teaching and learning. A recent study asked: Is non-verbal communication used in similar ways in culturally different communities?

The study examined the way children and their parents in two cultures – a Native American culture and a non-Native American culture – combine speech and gesture.

The Menominee children spoke more than their non-Native American counterparts.

Researchers watched how 4-year-olds used gesture and speech when playing with their mother or father. The pairs (17 child-mother pairs and 4 child-father pairs) were from the Menominee community in Wisconsin (one of 574 federally recognized Native Nations in the United States). The 4,000-5,000 Menominee people live on much-reduced ancestral lands in northeastern Wisconsin. The other 18 child-parent pairs (3 fathers, 15 mothers) in the study were from a non-Native American community in Chicago.

In the study, the pairs played with a forest diorama, consisting of both fixed landscape items and moveable trees and animals. This toy was developed by a collaboration between researchers and Menominee community members. The Menominee reservation is highly forested; hunting and fishing are important activities in the community.

The researchers observed videos of the pairs’ play and coded speech, gestures, and actions. (Actions could be placing an animal into the diorama, while gestures were hand signals and did not involve picking up anything.) Three categories of play were identified: verbal utterances on their own, gestures/actions on their own, and verbal utterances combined with a gesture or action. The researchers also measured how much the child and parent spoke – the number of utterances per minute.

The Menominee children spoke more than their non-Native American counterparts – 11.6 utterances per minute compared to 9.8. There is a widespread idea that Native American children are quieter, but this is clearly not the case when they are feeling secure with a parent and playing with something with which they identify.

For children in both communities, about 70% of all verbal utterances were accompanied by a gesture or an action. Gestures were more likely than actions to be accompanied by speech, to the same extent in both communities. Parents combined speech and gesture/action less than their children: About 45% of utterances of the Menominee parents and 40% of non-Native American parents were accompanied by actions or gestures.

The study provides a more culturally inclusive foundation for building on the cultural and community strengths of children in their education. It also highlights the important role of hand work in teaching and learning.

The post How do children and their parents in two cultures – Native American (Menominee) and non-Native American – combine speech and gesture? appeared first on Child and Family Blog.

In times of adversity, children should be given space to use different forms of play as a coping mechanism to explore their emotions and adapt to their current situation. In this article, we draw on the findings of three qualitative studies conducted in various countries with different levels of economic development to demonstrate how children use play to cope with challenges associated with the COVID-19 pandemic.

“Play serves a protective function even in the most difficult of circumstances.”

Models of adversity and resilience outline the multisystem influences on how families and children respond to difficult experiences (e.g., war, statelessness, poverty, natural disasters) across cultures. At the heart of resilience is the human capability to face, adapt to, and gather strength from adversity. One way children demonstrate resilience is through playful activities.

Play serves a protective function even in the most difficult circumstances, unmasks the psychosocial difficulties (e.g., anxiety, depression, emotional distress) children may encounter, and highlights the adaptive qualities they use to cope with adversities. Play permits children to express emotional connectedness, a perspective that aligns well with the contention that play is key to emotional survival.

At different stages of the ongoing COVID–19 pandemic, researchers examined how children used playful activities to cope with social isolation and school closures, and to gain an understanding of the virus itself. An examination of the play of Israeli children during the early stages of the pandemic revealed an increase in play interactions with siblings and parents, and marked changes in the nature and themes of sociodramatic play (i.e., acting out imaginary stories and situations; Cohen & Bamberger, 2021).

Photo: Cyprien Hauser. Creative Commons.

Sociodramatic themes reflected attempts to cope with fear of the virus through imaginary protection, seeking refuge from COVID-19, and beating it. Children turned to humor and displayed acts of moral concern for others in the family. According to parents, children grew in self-care, language, and motor skills.

In India, amid tight lockdowns, parents from low-income backgrounds in rural and peri-urban areas reported that they noticed few changes in their children’s play activities (Chaudhary, Kapoor, & Pillai, 2021). In urban settings, confinement prompted children to find new play spaces (e.g., under stairways, in the corner of a terrace) and to venture to street corners to play, often evading the scrutiny of authorities. Solitary and parallel play increased and interest in outdoor play rose. With dramatic increases in technology use, children in more well-off families turned to online games. Children were creative in modifying existing games by inserting themes they invented. As the pandemic progressed into the second year, parents noticed that their children continued to play in diverse ways and that they had become more considerate of others.

As in Israel and India, in neighborhoods of Toronto, Canada, photographs of children’s outdoor play demonstrated a tremendous sense of hope (Brownell, 2022). By participating in animal scavenger hunts for Teddy Bears in windows, locating stuffed animals hidden in trees, playing “I spy” games, and designing bunny trails, children learned to play with anonymous others on their street and around the block.

“Children continue to turn to play activities, either alone or with others, to navigate their way through the pandemic.”

Chalk sketches on sidewalks (e.g., hopscotch, galaxies, UFOs, underwater creatures, blue skies, grassy knolls, flowers) served to transport people to experiences beyond the immediate present. “Chalk talk” extolled hope (“you can do it,” “you are not alone,” “it will pass”) and prompted others to be safe (“stay six feet apart,” “no Halloween candy due to COVID”). These outdoor activities were not synchronous in that specific groups of children were involved. During a pandemic, they reflect children’s desire to invite others to play in their absence and offer hope to those in their neighborhood.

Amid daily challenges — online education, home schooling, and anxieties about the COVID–19 pandemic — these accounts indicate that children used various adaptive strategies to invent play spaces and engage in different play activities. In doing so, much emphasis was placed on different modes of play and children’s cognitive and social skills development.

As they do when dealing with other difficult circumstances, children continue to turn to play activities, either alone or with others, to navigate their way through the pandemic. At the bottom of it all, play permits us to express our humanity, examine our vulnerabilities, and extend social and moral concern for others in a global world community.

The post Coping through play activities during the COVID–19 pandemic appeared first on Child and Family Blog.