You mean we can't watch football around the kids?

I've written several times (like here, here and in my book) about research that points to the importance of content -- what is on the screen -- instead of only focusing on how much time young children spend with a screen.

Now it may be time to look even more deeply at what we mean by content, because the answer doesn't always jibe with what our culture considers okay for childhood consumption. Consider the way content was categorized in two articles in November's Pediatrics, which have received a fair amount of press. The studies showed a link between violent-TV watching at 2 or 3 and attention and agression problems five years later. Dimitri Christakis and Frederick Zimmerman of the University of Washington, the studies' authors, put content in three groups -- educational, non-violent entertainment and violent entertainment -- and offered popular examples for each. In their study on childhood aggression, Power Rangers, football, Star Wars, Space Jam, and Spider-Man were labeled as violent content watched frequently by boys.

Yup, that's right: football is in that list. Paul Nyhan, a reporter for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer who writes the Working Dad blog, has been following the research on children and TV and recently interviewed me for a story on the Pediatrics studies. Poring over the details of the study, he asked: Is even football off limits?

I kept hearing that question in my head this weekend, as our extended family gathered around the big-screen TV to watch the U.Va.-Virginia Tech game. (Yes, U.Va. lost. Drats.) There were four kids in the room: My daughters, 3 and 5, my nephew, 2, and my husband's younger brother, 11. The kids weren't watching very much (climbing the couch and putting together puzzles was more fun), but sometimes they snuggled in with the grownups to watch. Players threw each other to the ground, piled on top of each other, blocked and shoved. In other words, they played the game the way it's supposed to be played.

Is moderation the key? Will the negative impact, if there is one, be curtailed by once-a-month viewing? And couldn't context make a difference? If I tell my kids about what they are seeing -- noting that the players are wearing pads and helmets, pointing out that pulling on the face mask is against the rules -- will they come out ahead? Should I be more concerned about the commercials they see than the game itself?

That's the thing about media research and children. There are always more questions.

Gift guidance that doesn't kowtow to the marketers

Parents Choice has just published its Holiday Gift Guide and I want to single it out for a bunch of reasons.

First, parents should know that this isn't a company that is selling space to the highest bidder. This a site created by the Parents' Choice Foundation, a non-profit near Baltimore whose mission is to create a non-commercial clearinghouse of media and toys that truly delight.

Second, the guide is just plain pretty to look at and well-designed. Not only does it offer the "search by age" feature that is mandatory for choosing smart, age-appropriate toys for kids. It also allows you to "search by interest," diving right into sections with titles like "block, gears and gadgets," "ride-ons," and "pretend play." (The product finder gives you many other ways to search, too, like by the manufacturer of a product or how high it ranks by Parents' Choice reviewers.)

And third, well, I must admit that I'm a biased fan. This fall I started doing some writing and reviewing for Parents' Choice. I'm proud to be working for an organization that goes beyond the hype of new toys and media to figure out which ones are really worthwhile.

So here's my recommendation to anyone out there shopping for young kids. Take a look! But first, enjoy your Thanksgiving feast. Gobble, gobble!

Playtime and art supplies win appeal at NAEYC

Take thousands of preschool teachers, put them in a convention center, offer them 800 sessions about early childhood, and see where they end up.

Based on my unscientific observations in Chicago last week, at the annual meeting of the National Association for the Education of Young Children, they'll be drawn to the sessions on "play" like kids to cupcakes. They'll pack the ballroom to learn new ideas for using paints, putty and other school supplies. And while some will come to hear about new technology -- how it should be used and how it's being used poorly -- most won't.

As a mom of young children, that doesn't surprise me. I, too, want to know more about playtime. I love eavesdropping on my children's conversations in the midst of pretend play. And I'm a sucker for art supplies. I can't seem to walk out of Michael's, the big retail store, without spending $100 or more.

The idea of mixing computers with young kids has always been a harder sell -- for reasons that are both legitimate and not. I've watched Gigi, my 3-and-a-half-year-old, become enthralled with games on the computer, like those on SesameStreet.org, PBSKids.org, and Peep and the Big Wide World. She smiles and feels pride in what she can achieve online -- just as she beams whenever she accomplishes or masters new tasks offline. So clearly, there is something about technology that could work for kids -- if not done at the expense of other worthwhile moments.

In halfday preschools, for example, time is so limited that I understand and applaud decisions to keep kids involved in traditional "hands on" activities, like water tables, playdough, and playing dress up.

But in preschools and daycare centers that enroll children for a full day -- some even go into the evenings -- how should computer technology be used? What works? What doesn't? Will at-risk children need to be exposed to computers at age 4 in preschool, since their advantaged peers are probably getting it at home?

These are the some of the questions that were raised at the conference, but often to small audiences and often without satisfactory answers. The next NAEYC event, in New Orleans in June 2008, is focused on the use of technology in early childhood. I hope to attend -- and to learn much more. (Meanwhile, when it comes to tips for engaging kids, I've got a whole bunch of cool notes on creative ways to use water color paints.)

Finetuning the debate: educational vs. violent content for toddlers and preschoolers

Children imitate. When they see movements or actions performed by others, they want to try them for themselves. So you would think it would follow that the behaviors they see on screen can make a big difference in how they behave. But for many years the debates about TV viewing and young children have focused on the time spent watching, regardless of what is actually shown on the screen. The discussions have missed a crucial point.

New work by Dimitri Christakis and Frederick Zimmerman published on Monday, in Pediatrics, can go some way in fine-tuning the debate. The researchers, who wrote The Elephant in the Living Room, are becoming well-known for their analyses of surveys on children's time with media. In these most recent studies, they took a look at time diaries that families started in the late 1990s. Then they compared three types of media use by young children -- educational content, non-educational but non-violent content and violent content.

Their results showed that viewing violent content at preschool ages was associated with later anti-social behaviors in boys. They also found that a link to attention problems turned up with the viewing of non-educational and violent content before age 3, but not at age 4 and 5.

What's more, they revealed that watching educational content before 3 had no connection with attention problems in later childhood. That's an important update to their research, given that in 2004 they published a report showing a link between attention problems and TV time at that young age that lumped all TV time together, regardless of content.

As always, remember that these are associations, not proof that TV viewing is causing the result. Many researchers are aching to design controlled experiments that can start to test the question of what is causing what. Those kinds of studies are expensive, but perhaps there's some hope that we'll see them in the near future.

Calling for product ideas that cause a pre-teen ruckus

Obesity and inactivity: These are two villians often mentioned whenever people lament today's media and the state of kids' play. A new project called Ruckus Nation, run by the non-profit Hope Lab, aims to change that. It has launched a national competition to trigger the creation of new products that can make a dent in the obesity epidemic.

The deadline is November 20th. Teams of up to 6 people can apply. The challenge is to propose an idea for a product -- toy, game, web site, you name it -- that will make middle-school students get up, move and have fun. Winners get cash ($75,000 to the top winner) and the chance to have their proposals turn into real prototypes for testing.

As Ruckus Nation put it on their site:

Whether you’re a college student in Cape Town, a soccer coach in Savannah,
a grandparent in Guntur, an engineer in Nanjing, or a kid in Ketchikan, we’re
betting you have a product idea that could make a difference.

Looking for some magic in Lambertville, NJ

I returned yesterday from Dust or Magic 2007, a gathering of about 60 people who design children's software, games, toys and software. The ideas were stirring and the setting was beautiful. The conference room was part of the Lambertville Inn, perched at the edge of the Delaware River, on the New Jersey side. For the past 7 years, designers have been coming to this spot to share ideas and learn new tech-based techniques for helping and engaging children in learning and play.

Heading home on the train, recalling all the sessions of the past few days, my head was spinning. But here are a few whisps of what transpired:

• Warren Buckleitner, host of the event and editor of the Children's Technology Review, kept the group in stitches with his self-deprecating humor. He even dressed in drag at one point, but remained unwavering in his message that interactive media for children must follow the trajectory of their cognitive and motor development.
• Lane Merrifield, co-founder of Club Penquin, took a night out of his 10th anniversary vacation with his wife to talk about how the popular virtual world for kids got started. (For a detailed history, see Scott Traylor's article on his 360Kid blog.)
• Mitch Resnick of M.I.T. introduced Scratch and stressed the need for learning products that stimulate creative thinking.
• I watched an 11-year-old boy at Media Tech, a testing ground/rec center for tech toy play, concentrating fiercely on Frat Boy Beer Pong. (I haven't yet asked if this is a sanctioned activity there.) "Do you know what's in those cups?" I asked. "Beer," he said. He didn't look up.
• I gave a talk about my book and showed some video of my lovely children throwing tantrums when having to deal with the frustrations of some Web games and tech toys.
• A panel of toy evaluators gave a lot of "thumbs down" to current products on the market, while praising some of the new software products that are being developed by small independents.