Marisa Krinock
November 26, 2018
Professor MacFarlane
Media Production Assignment
Over an extensive period of time, researchers have pondered and looked for answers connected to the topic of A.D.H.D.. In this case, the research was focused on preschoolers as well as the comparing and contrasting of brain scans of ones who do and do not possess attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. This type of study carries a goal of creating a better understanding through data, research and results. The process of this study and its results will be educational to parents in what to look for in their child’s, early childhood behavior.
This study started with a group of researchers, participants, a question, and an outline of the study about to be conducted. The senior author of this study, Dr. Mark Mahone, created this study to share knowledge to the public, identifying both the biological and behavioral differences seen through the early childhood of children. By observing this topic with his colleagues, they were able to complete a list of qualifications a child must possess to participate in the study, allowing families to benefit from the results in learning more about their child’s make up. Factors from other research and studies show data of changes occuring in the brain at a early stage of a child’s life.
Stemming from the department of neuropsychology at the Kennedy Krieger Institution in Baltimore, director Dr.Mahone as well as several of his colleagues began the basic of their study with advanced brain scans on children. The age of the children ranged from 4 and 5 years olds. All of the children partaking in the study possessed similar societal components such as age, gender, socioeconomic status, I.Q., and established language ability and function. Keeping the children’s traits similar allows the researchers to focus on an alike group of individuals, controlling who participates. After the scans, the director as well as his colleagues were able to establish similarities and differences of the scan results. A total of 90 children received scans.This study used M.R.I. scans to conduct and find their results. Of the 90, 52 of the children’s brain scan showed signs of A.D.H.D., and 38 did not. Of the one’s who did possess symptoms of A.D.H.D., the results were very mixed. Differences were mostly found in specific regions of the brain, and results even showed a popular result of a smaller brain overall.
An A.D.H.D. diagnoses for a child is made easier at a young age. Allowing parents to know what their child’s disorder is and how to grow and deal with it, having it affect them in the least harmful way possible. These “difference” are said to visible by the time a child reaches the age of 4 years old. Creating a study for a major disorder that seems to be growing in popularity gives the public knowledge on what to look for in connection to A.D.H.D..
Attention deficit hyperacttivity disorder is seen as to be a considerably normal development in young children due to various behaviors that connect with not only normal behaviors of a child but also are seen as factors of this disorder. Being able to pinpoint patterns in ones behavior creates data and may be watched to review any changes over time. This is a disorder that is very clearly developed and onset when a child is in their early childhood years. A.D.H.D. is categorized as a biological disorder. This is a disturbance of one’s genetic material connecting to the structure of ne overall. The study allowed certain patterns and behaviors to discover this. Not only that, but an explanations of the symptoms that many many children experience were revealed as the scans came to an end. Knowledge like this gives parents a sense of direction in what to look for as their child goes through early development.
REFLECTION:
While going through the process of writing another summary of the first research article I used, I have learned alot about this topic. Not only do i have a better understanding of A.D.H.D. as a whole, but am confident enough to say I could accurately write more about it. The amount of work that was done during this project gives you alot of time to review the material, making sure you don’t miss any key points through the text, relating back to the data and the looked over study itself. While doing this assignment, I kept the five critical questions in the back of my head as I reviewed the text again. The article seemed to answer the critical questions, some more detailed than others. The study was aimed at a select group of children, with elements and qualifications that needed to be met in order to partake in the testing. This showed a sense of control, making sure the children has similarities through all aspects of their early childhood years.The way the participants were chosen, as well as how they were was written quite clearly. It was directed toward a specific age group in order to produce results, seeing the similarities and differences in each brain scan. The variables of this test were laid out in terms in which anyone would be able to accurately interpret them.
As I was summarizing the first research article, I did not feel the need to overwrite about details connecting to the study, in which I felt this author did. They were a few parts in the text where the information felt repetitive and seemed to be said multiple times, just in different wording. It was a little complicated trying to find what you think is most important to use in a summary because overall you are just generalizing all of the information and data given to you. In the summary I wrote, I tried to stick to the main point the test was trying to get across, not allowing any room for possible wrong interpretation or wandering questions. Being able to step inside the shoes of a journalist had its difficulties, but overall the main goal is to find the most informative and correct aspects of the research infront of you. Being able to not just understand what you are reading, but being able to find the key aspects of the article overall. I have learned from being a journalists throughout all three of these assignments, that authors write how they want their work to be interpreted. The pop culture assignment taught me that writing styles of regular, non scholarly article can have about the same amount of depth as a published, scholarly article. Critiquing someone’s work and interpreting it in your own way, allowing yourself to learn and understand what they have written was one of the main goals of this assignment. Seeing a study for what it is, and looking into the results to see what it can do for society. While doing the scholarly article critique, this process was much longer. The amount of text detail was extreme as well as the length of the overall article compared to the one found on New York Times. Both articles seemed to touch on the five critical questions, making it more understandable to its audience. Making the reading grab your attention and have you focus on different aspects of the article as your personal interest in what you are reading will continue to grow. This opens people up to the topic, and hopefully interests them enough to look deeper into the content. Keeping the information direct and focused, but at the same time not limiting the future audience of who will read or be interested in the article is something that I believe is very important in journalism. Allowing an individual to learn about a topic while incorporating main ideas and key points of the study and research, this is what journalism is all about.
Marisa Psych Blog 