Children who spend more than two hours a day at a computer or watching television are more likely than others to have mental problems，scientists say.
Researchers found that 11-year-olds who spent several hours in front of a screen each day did worse on mental health tests，no matter how much physical exercise they got. The University of Bristol study，published in Pediatrics，involved more than 1，000 children aged about 10.They also had the kids fill out questionnaires designed to gauge the kids' emotional well-being and behavior.
The questionnaires contained 20 questions covering five sections-emotional difficulties，conduct problems，hyperactivity or inattention，friendships and peer groups and problems relating to friends and peer groups.
The study found no direct evidence that sitting in front of a screen actually causes mental health problems. Instead，it suggests that children with difficulties，such as extreme shyness，are more likely to choose TV or computer games than sociable activities. In the study，children were asked whether they agreed，disagreed or somewhat agree with a list of statements，including，"I generally play alone or keep to myself" and，"I am often unhappy or tearful".They were also asked how much exercise they took and how long they spent at a TV or computer screen.
According to the study，children who spent more than two hours a day at a screen had a 60% higher risk of mental problems than children who spent fewer viewing hours. The risk was only slightly higher in children who did little or no exercise.
"Physical activity is good for health in many ways，but it can't make up for long hours of screen viewing. Parents should consider limiting their children's screen viewing to no more than 2 hours a day，”said the study organizer，Angie Page.
Previous studies have raised concerns that watching too much television can affect children's behavior in later life. A Canadian study found that those who watched most TV as young children performed worse at school, ate more junk food and had more trouble concentrating.
What information can we get about the University of Bristol study?
Children who spend more than two hours a day at a computer or watching television are more likely than others to have mental problems，scientists say.
Researchers found that 11-year-olds who spent several hours in front of a screen each day did worse on mental health tests，no matter how much physical exercise they got. The University of Bristol study，published in Pediatrics，involved more than 1，000 children aged about 10.They also had the kids fill out questionnaires designed to gauge the kids' emotional well-being and behavior.
The questionnaires contained 20 questions covering five sections-emotional difficulties，conduct problems，hyperactivity or inattention，friendships and peer groups and problems relating to friends and peer groups.
The study found no direct evidence that sitting in front of a screen actually causes mental health problems. Instead，it suggests that children with difficulties，such as extreme shyness，are more likely to choose TV or computer games than sociable activities. In the study，children were asked whether they agreed，disagreed or somewhat agree with a list of statements，including，"I generally play alone or keep to myself" and，"I am often unhappy or tearful".They were also asked how much exercise they took and how long they spent at a TV or computer screen.
According to the study，children who spent more than two hours a day at a screen had a 60% higher risk of mental problems than children who spent fewer viewing hours. The risk was only slightly higher in children who did little or no exercise.
"Physical activity is good for health in many ways，but it can't make up for long hours of screen viewing. Parents should consider limiting their children's screen viewing to no more than 2 hours a day，”said the study organizer，Angie Page.
Previous studies have raised concerns that watching too much television can affect children's behavior in later life. A Canadian study found that those who watched most TV as young children performed worse at school, ate more junk food and had more trouble concentrating.
What is the passage mainly about?
Children who spend more than two hours a day at a computer or watching television are more likely than others to have mental problems，scientists say.
Researchers found that 11-year-olds who spent several hours in front of a screen each day did worse on mental health tests，no matter how much physical exercise they got. The University of Bristol study，published in Pediatrics，involved more than 1，000 children aged about 10.They also had the kids fill out questionnaires designed to gauge the kids' emotional well-being and behavior.
The questionnaires contained 20 questions covering five sections-emotional difficulties，conduct problems，hyperactivity or inattention，friendships and peer groups and problems relating to friends and peer groups.
The study found no direct evidence that sitting in front of a screen actually causes mental health problems. Instead，it suggests that children with difficulties，such as extreme shyness，are more likely to choose TV or computer games than sociable activities. In the study，children were asked whether they agreed，disagreed or somewhat agree with a list of statements，including，"I generally play alone or keep to myself" and，"I am often unhappy or tearful".They were also asked how much exercise they took and how long they spent at a TV or computer screen.
According to the study，children who spent more than two hours a day at a screen had a 60% higher risk of mental problems than children who spent fewer viewing hours. The risk was only slightly higher in children who did little or no exercise.
"Physical activity is good for health in many ways，but it can't make up for long hours of screen viewing. Parents should consider limiting their children's screen viewing to no more than 2 hours a day，”said the study organizer，Angie Page.
Previous studies have raised concerns that watching too much television can affect children's behavior in later life. A Canadian study found that those who watched most TV as young children performed worse at school, ate more junk food and had more trouble concentrating.
How did the researchers carry out the study?
Children who spend more than two hours a day at a computer or watching television are more likely than others to have mental problems，scientists say.
Researchers found that 11-year-olds who spent several hours in front of a screen each day did worse on mental health tests，no matter how much physical exercise they got. The University of Bristol study，published in Pediatrics，involved more than 1，000 children aged about 10.They also had the kids fill out questionnaires designed to gauge the kids' emotional well-being and behavior.
The questionnaires contained 20 questions covering five sections-emotional difficulties，conduct problems，hyperactivity or inattention，friendships and peer groups and problems relating to friends and peer groups.
The study found no direct evidence that sitting in front of a screen actually causes mental health problems. Instead，it suggests that children with difficulties，such as extreme shyness，are more likely to choose TV or computer games than sociable activities. In the study，children were asked whether they agreed，disagreed or somewhat agree with a list of statements，including，"I generally play alone or keep to myself" and，"I am often unhappy or tearful".They were also asked how much exercise they took and how long they spent at a TV or computer screen.
According to the study，children who spent more than two hours a day at a screen had a 60% higher risk of mental problems than children who spent fewer viewing hours. The risk was only slightly higher in children who did little or no exercise.
"Physical activity is good for health in many ways，but it can't make up for long hours of screen viewing. Parents should consider limiting their children's screen viewing to no more than 2 hours a day，”said the study organizer，Angie Page.
Previous studies have raised concerns that watching too much television can affect children's behavior in later life. A Canadian study found that those who watched most TV as young children performed worse at school, ate more junk food and had more trouble concentrating.
Which of the children behavior below leads to the highest risk of the mental problems, according to the University of Bristol study?
Children who spend more than two hours a day at a computer or watching television are more likely than others to have mental problems，scientists say.
Researchers found that 11-year-olds who spent several hours in front of a screen each day did worse on mental health tests，no matter how much physical exercise they got. The University of Bristol study，published in Pediatrics，involved more than 1，000 children aged about 10.They also had the kids fill out questionnaires designed to gauge the kids' emotional well-being and behavior.
The questionnaires contained 20 questions covering five sections-emotional difficulties，conduct problems，hyperactivity or inattention，friendships and peer groups and problems relating to friends and peer groups.
The study found no direct evidence that sitting in front of a screen actually causes mental health problems. Instead，it suggests that children with difficulties，such as extreme shyness，are more likely to choose TV or computer games than sociable activities. In the study，children were asked whether they agreed，disagreed or somewhat agree with a list of statements，including，"I generally play alone or keep to myself" and，"I am often unhappy or tearful".They were also asked how much exercise they took and how long they spent at a TV or computer screen.
According to the study，children who spent more than two hours a day at a screen had a 60% higher risk of mental problems than children who spent fewer viewing hours. The risk was only slightly higher in children who did little or no exercise.
"Physical activity is good for health in many ways，but it can't make up for long hours of screen viewing. Parents should consider limiting their children's screen viewing to no more than 2 hours a day，”said the study organizer，Angie Page.
Previous studies have raised concerns that watching too much television can affect children's behavior in later life. A Canadian study found that those who watched most TV as young children performed worse at school, ate more junk food and had more trouble concentrating.
How can children improve mental health according to the passage？
Come on-Everybody's doing it. That whispered message，half invitation and half forcing，is what most of us think of when we hear the words peer pressure. It usually leads to no good-drinking，drugs and casual sex. But in her new book Join the Club，Tina Rosenberg contends that peer pressure can also be a positive force through what she calls the social cure，in which organizations and officials use the power of group dynamics to help individuals improve their lives and possibly the word.
Rosenberg，the recipient of a Pulitzer Prize，offers a host of examples of the social cure inaction: In South Carolina, a state-sponsored antismoking program called Rage Against the Haze sets out to make cigaretes uncool. In South Africa, an HIV-prevention initiative known as loveLife recruits young people to promote safe sex among their peers.
The idea seems promising, and Rosenberg is a perceptive observer. Her critique of the lameness of many public-health campaigns is spot-on: they fail to mobilize per pressure for healthy habits, and they demonstrate a seriously flawed understanding of psychology."Dare to be different, please don't smoke!" pleads one billboard campaign aimed at reducing smoking among teenagers-teenagers, who desire nothing more than fitting in. Rosenberg argues convincingly that public-health advocates ought to take a page from advertisers, so skilled at applying peer pressure.
But on the general effectiveness of the social cure, Rosenberg is less persuasive. Join the Club is filled with too much irrelevant detail and not enough exploration of the social and biological factors that make peer pressure so powerful. The most glaring flaw of the social cure as its presented here is that it doesn't work very well for very long. Rage Against the Haze failed once state funding was cut. Evidence that the loveLife program produces lasting changes is limited and mixed.
There's no doubt that our peer groups exert enormous influence on our behavior. An emerging body of research shows that positive health habits-as well as negative ones-spread through networks of friends via social communication. This is a subtle form of peer pressure: we unconsciously imitate the behavior we see every day.
Far less certain, however, is how successfully experts and bureaucrats can select our peer groups and steer their activities in virtuous directions. It's like the teacher who breaks up the troublemakers in the back row by pairing them with better-behaved classmates. The tactic never really works. And that's the problem with a social cure engineered from the outside: in the real world, as in school, we insist on choosing our own friends.
According to the first paragraph, peer pressure often emerges as________
Come on-Everybody's doing it. That whispered message，half invitation and half forcing，is what most of us think of when we hear the words peer pressure. It usually leads to no good-drinking，drugs and casual sex. But in her new book Join the Club，Tina Rosenberg contends that peer pressure can also be a positive force through what she calls the social cure，in which organizations and officials use the power of group dynamics to help individuals improve their lives and possibly the word.
Rosenberg，the recipient of a Pulitzer Prize，offers a host of examples of the social cure inaction: In South Carolina, a state-sponsored antismoking program called Rage Against the Haze sets out to make cigaretes uncool. In South Africa, an HIV-prevention initiative known as loveLife recruits young people to promote safe sex among their peers.
The idea seems promising, and Rosenberg is a perceptive observer. Her critique of the lameness of many public-health campaigns is spot-on: they fail to mobilize per pressure for healthy habits, and they demonstrate a seriously flawed understanding of psychology."Dare to be different, please don't smoke!" pleads one billboard campaign aimed at reducing smoking among teenagers-teenagers, who desire nothing more than fitting in. Rosenberg argues convincingly that public-health advocates ought to take a page from advertisers, so skilled at applying peer pressure.
But on the general effectiveness of the social cure, Rosenberg is less persuasive. Join the Club is filled with too much irrelevant detail and not enough exploration of the social and biological factors that make peer pressure so powerful. The most glaring flaw of the social cure as its presented here is that it doesn't work very well for very long. Rage Against the Haze failed once state funding was cut. Evidence that the loveLife program produces lasting changes is limited and mixed.
There's no doubt that our peer groups exert enormous influence on our behavior. An emerging body of research shows that positive health habits-as well as negative ones-spread through networks of friends via social communication. This is a subtle form of peer pressure: we unconsciously imitate the behavior we see every day.
Far less certain, however, is how successfully experts and bureaucrats can select our peer groups and steer their activities in virtuous directions. It's like the teacher who breaks up the troublemakers in the back row by pairing them with better-behaved classmates. The tactic never really works. And that's the problem with a social cure engineered from the outside: in the real world, as in school, we insist on choosing our own friends.
Rosenberg holds that public-health advocates should________.
Come on-Everybody's doing it. That whispered message，half invitation and half forcing，is what most of us think of when we hear the words peer pressure. It usually leads to no good-drinking，drugs and casual sex. But in her new book Join the Club，Tina Rosenberg contends that peer pressure can also be a positive force through what she calls the social cure，in which organizations and officials use the power of group dynamics to help individuals improve their lives and possibly the word.
Rosenberg，the recipient of a Pulitzer Prize，offers a host of examples of the social cure inaction: In South Carolina, a state-sponsored antismoking program called Rage Against the Haze sets out to make cigaretes uncool. In South Africa, an HIV-prevention initiative known as loveLife recruits young people to promote safe sex among their peers.
The idea seems promising, and Rosenberg is a perceptive observer. Her critique of the lameness of many public-health campaigns is spot-on: they fail to mobilize per pressure for healthy habits, and they demonstrate a seriously flawed understanding of psychology."Dare to be different, please don't smoke!" pleads one billboard campaign aimed at reducing smoking among teenagers-teenagers, who desire nothing more than fitting in. Rosenberg argues convincingly that public-health advocates ought to take a page from advertisers, so skilled at applying peer pressure.
But on the general effectiveness of the social cure, Rosenberg is less persuasive. Join the Club is filled with too much irrelevant detail and not enough exploration of the social and biological factors that make peer pressure so powerful. The most glaring flaw of the social cure as its presented here is that it doesn't work very well for very long. Rage Against the Haze failed once state funding was cut. Evidence that the loveLife program produces lasting changes is limited and mixed.
There's no doubt that our peer groups exert enormous influence on our behavior. An emerging body of research shows that positive health habits-as well as negative ones-spread through networks of friends via social communication. This is a subtle form of peer pressure: we unconsciously imitate the behavior we see every day.
Far less certain, however, is how successfully experts and bureaucrats can select our peer groups and steer their activities in virtuous directions. It's like the teacher who breaks up the troublemakers in the back row by pairing them with better-behaved classmates. The tactic never really works. And that's the problem with a social cure engineered from the outside: in the real world, as in school, we insist on choosing our own friends.
In the author's view, Rosenberg's book fails to________.
Come on-Everybody's doing it. That whispered message，half invitation and half forcing，is what most of us think of when we hear the words peer pressure. It usually leads to no good-drinking，drugs and casual sex. But in her new book Join the Club，Tina Rosenberg contends that peer pressure can also be a positive force through what she calls the social cure，in which organizations and officials use the power of group dynamics to help individuals improve their lives and possibly the word.
Rosenberg，the recipient of a Pulitzer Prize，offers a host of examples of the social cure inaction: In South Carolina, a state-sponsored antismoking program called Rage Against the Haze sets out to make cigaretes uncool. In South Africa, an HIV-prevention initiative known as loveLife recruits young people to promote safe sex among their peers.
The idea seems promising, and Rosenberg is a perceptive observer. Her critique of the lameness of many public-health campaigns is spot-on: they fail to mobilize per pressure for healthy habits, and they demonstrate a seriously flawed understanding of psychology."Dare to be different, please don't smoke!" pleads one billboard campaign aimed at reducing smoking among teenagers-teenagers, who desire nothing more than fitting in. Rosenberg argues convincingly that public-health advocates ought to take a page from advertisers, so skilled at applying peer pressure.
But on the general effectiveness of the social cure, Rosenberg is less persuasive. Join the Club is filled with too much irrelevant detail and not enough exploration of the social and biological factors that make peer pressure so powerful. The most glaring flaw of the social cure as its presented here is that it doesn't work very well for very long. Rage Against the Haze failed once state funding was cut. Evidence that the loveLife program produces lasting changes is limited and mixed.
There's no doubt that our peer groups exert enormous influence on our behavior. An emerging body of research shows that positive health habits-as well as negative ones-spread through networks of friends via social communication. This is a subtle form of peer pressure: we unconsciously imitate the behavior we see every day.
Far less certain, however, is how successfully experts and bureaucrats can select our peer groups and steer their activities in virtuous directions. It's like the teacher who breaks up the troublemakers in the back row by pairing them with better-behaved classmates. The tactic never really works. And that's the problem with a social cure engineered from the outside: in the real world, as in school, we insist on choosing our own friends.
Paragraph 5 shows that our imitation of behaviors.
Come on-Everybody's doing it. That whispered message，half invitation and half forcing，is what most of us think of when we hear the words peer pressure. It usually leads to no good-drinking，drugs and casual sex. But in her new book Join the Club，Tina Rosenberg contends that peer pressure can also be a positive force through what she calls the social cure，in which organizations and officials use the power of group dynamics to help individuals improve their lives and possibly the word.
Rosenberg，the recipient of a Pulitzer Prize，offers a host of examples of the social cure inaction: In South Carolina, a state-sponsored antismoking program called Rage Against the Haze sets out to make cigaretes uncool. In South Africa, an HIV-prevention initiative known as loveLife recruits young people to promote safe sex among their peers.
The idea seems promising, and Rosenberg is a perceptive observer. Her critique of the lameness of many public-health campaigns is spot-on: they fail to mobilize per pressure for healthy habits, and they demonstrate a seriously flawed understanding of psychology."Dare to be different, please don't smoke!" pleads one billboard campaign aimed at reducing smoking among teenagers-teenagers, who desire nothing more than fitting in. Rosenberg argues convincingly that public-health advocates ought to take a page from advertisers, so skilled at applying peer pressure.
But on the general effectiveness of the social cure, Rosenberg is less persuasive. Join the Club is filled with too much irrelevant detail and not enough exploration of the social and biological factors that make peer pressure so powerful. The most glaring flaw of the social cure as its presented here is that it doesn't work very well for very long. Rage Against the Haze failed once state funding was cut. Evidence that the loveLife program produces lasting changes is limited and mixed.
There's no doubt that our peer groups exert enormous influence on our behavior. An emerging body of research shows that positive health habits-as well as negative ones-spread through networks of friends via social communication. This is a subtle form of peer pressure: we unconsciously imitate the behavior we see every day.
Far less certain, however, is how successfully experts and bureaucrats can select our peer groups and steer their activities in virtuous directions. It's like the teacher who breaks up the troublemakers in the back row by pairing them with better-behaved classmates. The tactic never really works. And that's the problem with a social cure engineered from the outside: in the real world, as in school, we insist on choosing our own friends.
The author suggests in the last paragraph that the effect of peer pressure is________.
Teacher1
Step 4：Homework
1.Write new words and phrases on the notebook.
2.Finish exercise 3 on Page 21.（Text book）
3.Finish exercises on Page 20-24.（Exercise book）
Teacher2
Step 4：Homework
1.Find some relative information about today's lesson on the Internet.
2.Share your findings with your group members and present to the whole students next class.
根据上面的信息，从下面三个方面作答：
（1）布置作业有什么意义？（8分）
（2）分析两位教师布置作业的特点，并指出其不足之处。（10分）
（3）教师在布置作业时应注意哪些问题（至少四个方面）？（12分）