The following articles can be found and are recommended:
Children who have been exposed to heavy levels of prenatal alcohol are subject to a shift in their attention.
A framework to address the needs of students who are prenatally exposed.
Prenatal Cocaine Exposure: Children’s Reactivity and Regulation
Answer the following questions:
Please explain why you think the gap identified in the research should continue to be explored in future research.
c. Discuss the benefits of the proposed research to psychology.
Children who are exposed to excessive amounts of alcohol prenatally can experience central nervous system dysfunction.
It can cause a loss of intelligence, learning, and dysfunction in the visuo-spatial system.
Attention deficits are more common in prenatal exposure children.
Because there is little information on how attention shifts, literature reviews are essential to help understand the subject.
Mattson, Calarco & Lang (2006) discovered that children exposed to fetal alcohol during pregnancy are more likely to experience attention deficit.
This shows the drug’s potential teratogenicity.
The children were evaluated on the basis their visual, auditory, and shift of focus.
Based on three parameters, there was an alternating response for each group. Children exposed to alcohol had the most trouble with visual focused attention and hearing.
Watson, Westby, & Gable, 2007, however, provided details on the learning and behavioral issues of children who were exposed to alcohol prenatally as well as the risk factors.
Another research found that children react to and regulate differently when exposed to cocaine prenatally.
These children were more likely to have difficulty solving problems and show frustration (Dennis, et al. 2006).
Research Identified Gap
The research gaps found in the articles were not complete.
Mattson, Calarco, and Lang (2006) showed a lack of generalisability because participants in the study were either referred or assigned retrospectively.
Second, children’s attention deficit might be affected by their IQ levels.
Dennis et.al. (2006) focused their research on frustration reactivity via one task. However it should have been studied through multiple tasks.
Therefore, future research will need to analyse executive function difficulties in each child. This is because not all children with these difficulties have had prenatal exposure to alcohol or other drugs.
It may be possible to identify intervention needs in each child by examining the characteristics of dysfunction.
Future Work: How research articles inform
These limitations, despite being identified as limitations in the article inform future research on this topic.
Mattson, Calarco, and Lang (2006) found that prenatal exposure does not cause attention problems in all children. However, there is a shift in attention over time.
The study revealed that while consistency can be observed in attention and ability to focus on visual stimuli, it is not the same as a deficit in attention to auditory stimuli.
This suggests that attention deficits in visual stimuli are more common than those in auditory stimuli.
This aspect of future research should be considered.
After analysing the research study, it is suggested that visual stimuli affect attention in children who have been exposed to alcohol prenatally and the methods to mitigate this risk be studied.
This research will be a contribution to the development of psychology as it will allow for complete behavioral assessment and insight into student problem.
This will enable the implementation of appropriate interventions to treat attention deficits among children.
This will allow teachers to be better informed about the reasons for children’s attention deficits and will also reduce unnecessary punishment.
Prenatal exposure to cocaine causes children’s reactivity and regulation.
Concentrated and shifting attention in children exposed to heavy prenatal alcohol.
A framework to address the needs of students who have been prenatally exposed.
Preventing School Failing: Alternative Education for Children, Youth, 52(1) 25-32.