What Are Your Children Watching?
A Study on the Educational Value of Television on Children
The characters used in children's television programs are the most familiar faces that children know. Watching with an ever-lasting vigilance, the events and characters of these programs become important to children. As a result of their importance these characters find themselves as kids' toys, on their clothing, and in their storybooks. For adults, most importantly parents, these animations/ costumes/ puppets have an altogether higher purpose: educating.
Alas, a good children's story can not exist without a conflict. What about the bad guys? The supposed good guys, who are actually beating up the real bad guys. They use violence to win the day and then, "use phony morals touted at the end of the program to justify itself to parents and activists" ( Mitchell 15). But these bad guys get the same attention as their more passive counterparts and can affect their young viewers' minds just the same.
What is more important? Helping train children to think or helping train future fighters? These questions stem from a much larger question asked many times by parents and teachers: Is television teaching our kids anything? I think so. There are many programs that use violence as a medium for entertaining their viewers, but on the other hand there are many programs that educate their viewers. What if we had programs that both educated and entertained? Wait. We do.
Even though there is an abundance of children's shows that promote violence and other generally uneducational topics, there are also shows that help literacy, cultural literacy, and educational process. I intend to prove the importance of television and the needs for television to help nurture those positive aspects. The positive effect of television for improving literacy, cultural literacy and education, outweighs the negative effects that violent and uneducational programs bring to children.
Does educational television actually work?
A children's television program needs one important device to keep its watchers glued to the set: entertainment. The reason most children's shows are on television because they somehow entertain their audience. Whether it be through zany cartoons, silly costumed dinosaurs, or saving the world, kids will only watch the show if they enjoy watching it. Kids are not going to watch a show merely for its educational value. So if educational programs are entertaining to children, how do we know if what they are watching is actually educating them? The following reports prove that television shows with a basis on education do actually have an effect on children.
In the late Eighties the ETS (Educational Testing Service) tested the effects of an Arabic speaking educational program called Al Manaahil (The Sources) ( Murphy, Evaluation i). More than 5,000 children in Jordan, Morocco, and Tunisia who saw this show were then tested to see what impact the show would have on their test scores compared to those who had not seen the show (i). The results of the testing showed a positive impact on children's reading, but the tests were not the only results that gave the show a positive rating (i). Teachers and parents also agreed that Al Manaahil had a positive effect on the children (i). The results from this study show that educational programming for children can definitely affect the literacy of children.
There have also been studies done on a children's television show a little more familiar to Americans, Sesame Street. In Educational Effectiveness of Sesame Street: a Review of the first Twenty Years of Research, 1969-1989 Richard Murphy looks at the studies done over the first twenty years of the program. Even though there have been over a hundred studies done on this show during this period, only sixteen are used because, "the authors provided data on some educationally related variable" ( Murphy . Educational 1). The author's conclusion of his report is that
The story is a mixed one. There are studies that present results with little credibility. There are other studies that present negative results...On the whole, however, the studies with the strongest designs indicate that Sesame Street... had a significant positive impact on the pre-reading and school-readiness skills of children in the United States (27).By looking at these two examples we can see that the use of educational television is having a positive effect on children.
The Bad Guys
Even when looking at all the positive shows that are on the air we can not forget the shows we would rather have soon forgot. These are the shows that use educationally negative programming such as violence as their format of entertainment. There are many studies that promote television by praising the affects of educational television, however many studies also show the negative effects these programs have on children.
The first of these negative effects is violence. "Television violence and the impact it has on children is a growing concern in the world today" ( Crump 2). In Media Literacy: Fighting the Effect Television Has on Children Charla A. Crump discusses the, "association between television violence and aggressive behavior" (3). She says that violent television, "increases violent and aggressive tendencies in young people," and as a result, "contributes to the growth of violent crime in the United States" (3). Her solution to this problem consists of parents, teachers, and networks taking up more responsibility for what children are watching. She calls for the need to teach kids how to watch television critically and literately (16).
Also, to support this argument, Reed Markham, Ph.D. points out the negative effects of television in Communication: The Negative Side of Television. To begin his paper he retells a story of a young boy wanting to poison his teacher, as someone had done on television ( Markham . Communication 1). After this he lists the other negative effects of television, that is, promoting aggressive behavior, its connection with learning problems, and its negative effect on children's' health (1). So through his report we get an overview of the evils of television. But he also, as did Crump, gives ways of curbing this problem, through strong parental guidance (2). In another paper though, Television: A Communication Tool to Help Your Children he discusses the positive effects of television. This he says can be done just as curbing the negative effects can be done: by parental guidance ( Markham . Television 1-2).
Even though these two reports argue the negative effects of television they also discuss the positive effects. They show that even though the television does have its negative side, there is also a positive side present and easily accessible. Violence, although very important when discussing what children watch, is something that can be limited with the right guidance.
The general, "uneducational" aspect of television also shows the bad side of television. In Television Viewing and Reading Fran Lehr points out the strong relationship between high television viewing amounts and low academic achievement ( Lehr 1). Lehr found that,
Children students who watch up to two hours of television per day have reading proficiency levels above average for their age groups, but that viewing levels of six or more hours a day are consistently and strongly related to lower proficiency across age groups (1).Along with this fact she also points out a variety of other studies that examine tests using variables such as age and test scores. Overall she argues the negative effects of the television, but she as the others, discusses possible ways that television could have a positive impact on children.
Each of these authors gives a negative view of the television that children watch. Both the violence and the uneducational content of many programs are very good reasons to keep children away from the television. Considering that each author, in his or her paper, discusses ways of making sure that children watched programs that had some positive value indicates their belief that television can provide a positive output.
The Good Guys
There are two shows currently running that are very good examples of what television can produce in the realm of entertaining, yet educational, programming. Reading Rainbow and Animaniacs are two shows that take different approaches to entertaining/ educating children. Each show is very affective and by their popularity, and as a result, running time (i.e., Reading Rainbow, 11 years) shows that they are reaching people ( Graham 1).
Reading Rainbow, hosted by Emmy Award winner LaVar Burton uses a strictly educational background while presenting its topics in various settings that are relevant to the books' topics (1). The goal of this show is to "encourage young viewers to turn to books for entertainment and enlightenment" (1). Creating Families of Readers by Wendy J. Graham takes a look at the overall trends for studies on Reading Rainbow. It reviews the studies done by the Western New York Public Broadcasting Association that used this research to plan television programs to "cultivate family literacy" (i). In the report Graham discusses the general responses of the six groups involved in children's' television watching and children's' education, which are parents, teachers, literacy providers, children, principals, and parent coordinators/networks (7-12). The responses include references to other educational television programs, what children of different age groups watch, television watching habits, and parents' and teachers' views (7-12). The majority of the feedback, that was found specifically about Reading Rainbow, comes from how children and parents reacted (7-9). From those views one of the statements made was, "Children believe Reading Rainbow is good, makes reading fun, helps children read more, introduces them to new books, and supports learning" (7). In the conclusion of this report this Graham says, "Generally, public television [i.e., Reading Rainbow] is viewed as an asset in Western New York, offering a variety of educational programs that represent quality" (13). So through this report we see the positive response to educational programming in Reading Rainbow. Through the use of an obvious educational setting Reading Rainbow has be able to retain children viewers and satisfy the critics of children's television as has been seen through this report out of Western New York. An obvious educational format is not the only affective educational entertainment though. Cartoons work too.
"Wherever there is belching, we'll be there. Wherever there is stupidity, we'll be there! Wherever there is candy, we'll be there a lot quicker!" -the Warner Brothers "Now that's comedy!" -Slappy Squirrel ( Mitchell 3)This sets the tone for the next subject: Animaniacs. The Warner Brothers, Yakko, Wakko, and, their sister Dot, are the main characters in this animated series. Even though by appearance they are your average, ordinary, everyday cartoon character, inside, there is actually value in their madness. In "Kids' Stuff": Cartoons as Mirrors of the American Mind, Tracy L. Mitchell explains the method behind this madness and points out the educational value that the show exhibits. In her essay Mitchell looks past the slap-stick associated with most cartoons and analyzes the actual intellectual content of the program (4). Surprisingly enough, that content is on what the show is based. As seen through a series of programs chosen for being most representative of a standard show, recurring themes are revealed (8,11). "These themes are a stress on intelligence and learning; wrongness of egotism, selfishness, and rudeness toward others; the value of observing and thinking for oneself; and the importance of media literacy" (11-12). These themes are definitely worthy of the educational value wanted in children's programming, and it is entertaining too.
By using "interspersed juvenile and slap-stick forms of humor with more sophisticated satire and references to other pieces of literature and pop culture" Animaniacs has had the ability to attract both a large children and adult audience, adults attributing to approximately a quarter of the viewers (4). By using popular historical figures (e.g. Abraham Lincoln, Einstein, and Michaelangeo) and satirical facsimiles of present day celebrities (e.g. Howie Tern (Howard Stern) and Willie Slakmer (William Shatner)) viewers are introduced to a twisted, but informative, look at our historical and cultural background (4). This type of sophisticated humor is also what brings in the twenty-five percent adult viewing audience (4). While children are enjoying the zany Warner Brothers, and how they interact with the different characters, adults can enjoy the mature references to today's society. Having this humor integrated into the show also introduces children to this type of humor.
Because cartoons are based on humor, they are especially apt for examining culture. Humor may be the one genre most closely tied to particular of the rhetor's culture and its success is most dependent on the audience's knowledge of that culture (7).By introducing children to this type of "cultured humor" through cartoons, they can obtain that cultural knowledge at a younger age. So we see that Animaniacs with its employment of humor also has the ability to educate, as did Reading Rainbow.
If a television show is not entertaining children are not going to watch it. Kids enjoy violence, so if we want to educate them through television we must come up with programs that they are going to also going to like that does not include violence. Reading Rainbow and Animaniacs are two excellent examples of the type of programming we need. By airing programs like these we show that television is a very powerful tool in educating our youth and that its positive effects outweigh its negative effects.