Posted in Reading Response

Are We Overmedicating Our Children?

Research Blog #1: “CDC: One in 13 Children Taking Psych Meds”

The New American published an article entitled “CDC: One in 13 Children Taking Psych Meds.” In this article, the argument is made that not only are an increasing number of children in the United States being prescribed psychiatric medication, but a substantial number of those children are being improperly medicated.

The article uses data from the Centers for Disease Control as the basis for their claim that the number of children medicated is growing. According to the article and the referenced data, in 2014, “7.5 percent of children between the ages of six and seventeen” were on psychiatric medication, which is a clear and substantial increase in prescriptions from the previous two decades.

The American Psychiatric Association then provides the data for the articles second claim, which is that children in the United States are being improperly diagnosed and therefore overmedicated. The Association released the information that “five percent of American children have ADHD, but studies reveal more than 11 percent of American children are diagnosed with the condition.”

The article may be short, but it makes hugely concerning claims. The article itself is fairly focused in on ADHD as a so-called epidemic being blown out of proportion and vastly overdiagnosed. However, it hints at larger concerns. If the statistics for diagnosis and prescriptions are so out of proportion for this one issue, how accurate are other diagnosis for similar cases? Is ADHD that difficult to diagnose, or is this article and referenced data revealing a larger issue amongst the prescription and use of psychiatric medications?

The article itself makes a decent, qualified argument. As it is a work intended for the public sphere, it is careful to make its point clear without casting too much doubt and clouding its argument. The data referenced is not embellished and the interpretations by the article’s author includes qualifications that acknowledge the limits of the data. The article remains largely objective, referencing statistics from reliable, well-known sources for the basis of the article. The claim comes from yet another source intended to come across as reliable, leaving the author of the article seemingly objective and just stating the facts. Overall, the article’s claim and reasoning are strong, leaving just hints that the issue could be wider than the provided data specifically states.

The possible number of incorrect diagnosis for our school-aged children is a concerning concept. The overuse of psychiatric medication is even more so. The United States seems to be suffering from a too large reliance on medications. People are becoming reliant on various little pills and syrups to solve their issues without stopping to consider what it is they are injecting into their bodies. The thought that these medications are being offered to children incorrectly makes the problem even more apparent. The medications prescribed can often have lasting effects even when used properly. Dosing our kids up based on quick and inaccurate judgements can have vast and lasting repercussions that so many people fail to consider, leading to data such as that referenced in the article. It is a frightening concept. Our kids don’t need to be drugged to the gills because they’re having a bad day; they need to be taught how to properly care for themselves and others.  We need to enable our children, not hinder them with wrongly prescribed drugs.

Posted in Reading Response

Collaborating Online: The New Frontier?

Spock, incredibly smart, incredibly isolated — Star Trek 2009

Anthony T. Atkins wrote an essay entitled “Collaborating Online: Digital Strategies for Group Work,” which served to outline the various ways electronics and the internet can be of assistance to group work, especially in the college classroom. The essay focuses predominantly on Wiki and Google Docs, the two main platforms at the time of publication in 2010. The essay itself is broken into three sections, which include assessing the project or task, using technology to organize the project, and using technology to present the project.

The essay is directed at college students, offering strategies which serve to work around inflexible schedules, create a more productive atmosphere, and alleviate participation problems. Offering free and easily accessible platforms as resources is one way Atkins effectively acknowledges his intended audience. Another is offering the explanation that the platforms he recommends allows groups to access all media involved in a group project without the tedium of emailing individual resources. Atkin’s final push for utilizing online resources for group work is the ability to police non-contributing group members, effectively addressing the biggest complaint involved with group assignments.

As a piece of work in the public sphere, Atkin’s essay is a good example of how to appeal to a particular audience for a specific purpose. Atkins believes in using technology as a resource for group work in schools. He makes an argument directed at college students who have to participate in group work as part of a class. He assumes various facets of a college students’ personality, like being persuaded by free resources, when he constructs his argument. He makes a claim of policy, arguing that his points are credible and that his audience should utilize his advice.

Beyond the mechanics involved in the essay, the subject of technology being used in a classroom setting introduced by Atkins brings up an interesting debate regarding the changing role of technology within schools. The use of technology within classrooms has been increasing exponentially. Google Classroom and other Google platforms allow for easier access to all school documents and resources, especially when using a school computer. Youtube and Ted Talks are being utilized by teachers as part of their lesson plans. Schools even have their parents sign up on various apps that allow the schools to send out mass text messages. Technology is firmly planting itself within schools.

On one hand, as pointed out by Atkin in his essay, it is incredibly convenient to utilize technology. It allows students to work together or teachers to see progress. It saves paper and gives teacher access to a much broader spectrum of resources. Websites such as GoNoodle are popping up constantly, their main purpose providing teachers with resources to use directly in the classroom, projected on a screen in front of the entire class. Another positive aspect mentioned by Atkins is the decreased pressure for those students who struggle to communicate, an online platform allowing them to participate where they may otherwise hold back.

Technology is not just a tool. It can give learners a voice that they may not have had before.

George Couros

On the other hand, technology is rapidly moving towards a place where face-to-face interactions are a thing of the past. Atkin’s entire essay is dedicated to the idea that group work can now be done without actually being in the same room as each other. Very little direct interaction is even needed once initial plans have been laid, as everyone can simply add their work and see what others have done without conversation. Entire classes are now being held online, sometimes with interactions among students and sometimes only interacting with the program.

Classrooms don’t need tech geeks who can teach; we need teaching geeks who can use tech.

David Geurin

Decreased social interaction is becoming a common and almost expected aspect of adolescents lives. A new stereotype has emerged that considers adolescents incapable of social interactions; awkward and not good with people is the new norm. Certainly, technology is incredibly convenient in a lot of ways, only some of which were pointed out in Atkin’s essay. However, the question has to be asked: Where does it stop? Can we find the line where technology remains helpful and not smothering, or are we destined to live behind a screen forever?

Will it stop before we have to rely on a robot with more social capabilities than us? — Wall-E 2008