In the short snippet above Dutwin raises an interesting point that much of our ‘knowledge’ is built on experiences with what we see on the screen- rather than through physical participation. By presenting a simple analogy referencing CSI, Dutwin challenges us to consider the impact of television on knowledge construction and perception.
In terms of Socio-cultural Theory the very presence of television in children’s daily lives needs to be considered as a serious factor in socialization and identity formation. Socio-cultural perspectives recognize that children develop through their experiences and interactions with others and their environment (Valenzuela, 2002). Because research suggests that children aged 8-18 years spent on average 4 hours and 29 minutes per day watching television in some form or another (AMCA, 2010), we need to rethink what and who are the most influential players in children’s lives. What can television do for us?
Through television we are able to ‘participate’ much more broadly with the world. We are exposed to a more diverse populace, have greater access to information, news and opinion, and we have greater access to ‘role’ models positive or otherwise. Rather than fight the giant beast that is television is it possible that we could tame it?
As a parent and an educator I support the view that rather than labelling television as a negative influence we should view television in light of the opportunities it opens to engage in dialogue between what we see on the screen and that, which exists, in everyday life. In terms of socio-cultural theory and social development the rights and wrongs presented on television are great models for teaching and learning.
In early childhood this moral theory has been embraced as shows like Thomas the Tank Engine and Bananas in Pyjamas are loaded with moral undertones. With a little flexible thinking and creative teaching perhaps even shows like Home and Away and Jersey Shore could offer such social and emotional lessons for our secondary students (Jersey Shore- Yes I did say creative teaching- perhaps a way of looking at what NOT to do in life!).
The dire consequences of “getting square eyes” from my childhood viewing of television did not occur, thankfully. But our mothers may have been right in their concern about our TV viewing. A longitudinal study done over 4 years in Germany (Ennemoser, M. & Schneider, W. (2007) Relations of Television Viewing and Reading: Findings From a 4-Year Longitudinal Study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99 (2) pp. 349-368) reveals that television is not a “one size fits all” commodity. The journal article inspects such factors as educational vs. entertainment television viewing, time spent viewing and socio-economic status (SES) and IQ of the viewer and resultant reading literacy achievement.
ReplyDeleteOverall outcomes of the study support the view that individual differences in early television viewing may have long-lasting effects. Heavy amounts of entertainment viewing can have negative effects on reading literacy development. Low IQ children and children from low SES backgrounds seem to be particularly at risk of belonging to the heavy-watching group. Optimal viewing time to establish positive effects actually declines with age of child but the evidence would show that children watch more television as they age and parental restrictions are loosened. The definition of “heavy” is interesting in that what constituted heavy viewing hours in Germany (90 minutes to 2 hours) was within the range of normal viewing in America. This was backed up in the video you provided, Television and child development. Another difference was that Germany had very few children’s programs that could be labelled as educational for the kindergarten group and the viewing time for them was in the morning in contrast to America’s afternoon showings and quite varied offerings. Achievements of heavy-viewing groups did not differ significantly in the early years but that achievement gap widened over time with continued heavy viewing. There were limitations in their study but it seemed that the negative correlation between heavy entertainment television viewing and reading literacy was constant.
The German study, the videos you provided for the blog and the article by the raising children network are consistent in their provisos that are needed for television to be a positive influence. Supervision, timing, program choice and discussion are a few common elements in their content. It’s a case of “focussing and thoughtfully using media” vs. “flicking on the TV and letting it run”.
If we were applying the message coming from these sources to our Australian classes, we might consider some of the following. Instead of condemning the television viewing hours of our lower IQ and SES students, we could enhance their media literacy and attempt to channel their viewing in to the educational realm. Their favourite television shows could be used as learning objects in multi modal ways. School libraries could be part of this in collaborating with the classroom teacher to provide resources. More fun/educational DVDs could be made available for borrowing. There has been some resistance to this by many schools because of ease of damage. Books about their favourite programs could be promoted. Students could be taught how to find online and newspaper articles, Twitter and blog posts and use them as discussion points, reading material and more. Sounds like digital literacy converging with media literacy converging with reading literacy. This sounds like a POSITIVE stemming from television viewing. You could have been right when you told your Mum television was good for you!
Posted by Cecily 09/10/2011