SpongeBob Rebuttal

I was amused to find a rebuttal to my SpongeBob post in my email this morning.

Bart writes:

Oh, btw, saw your blog entry on Spongebob… I agree, the study could have been more well researched, but for the right age group, it could be appropriate. Spongebob even saved two lives! http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/NJ-Boy-8-Saves-5-Year-Old-From-Drowning-Credits-Spongebob-96039054.html

I’ll concede a point to SpongeBob, but I’ll also give a nod to the specification that the target age group is important – perhaps another flaw in the study, and/or the viewing audience in practice. (The kids in the study I quoted were of preschool age.) In any case, I stand by the fact that if the concept is to be raised at all, it should be examined more thoroughly and methodically than it was.

Sloppy Studies: SpongeBob and Executive Function

It often pains me when I find a study whose results I feel are actually accurate, but their method is sloppy and therefore discrediting. A prime example is this article in the New York Times today.  I think there’s definitely something to the content of the media children take in, and the logic that a fast-paced, not-entirely-linear program might damage attention seems very sound to me. However, it almost seems like the researchers are their own worst enemy; their sample sizes and choices were hideous, and the differing methods of assessment before and after the study just pain me. Could someone please take this concept and run with it, but do it correctly this time? Thanks.