Children Now (TV Programming for Kids Citing PBS as Leader) 2008 Report_Executives Summary

8/14/2019 Children Now (TV Programming for Kids Citing PBS as Leader) 2008 Report_Executives Summary

1/18

childrennow.org i

Educationally/Insufcient?An Analysis o the Availability & Educational Quality o ChildrensE/I Programming

Executive Summary


2/18

In return or the ree use o publicly-owned television airwaves, broadcast

stations are required to air three hours per week o childrens educational/

inormational (E/I) programming. The guidelines that determine what

qualifes as an educational program do not address the quality o the

educational content. Thus, broadcasters have a great deal o discretion in

applying the E/I label to a wide range o programs designed or a young

audience. This study examines broadcasters commitments to serving the

needs o children by assessing the availability and educational quality o

their E/I programs.

Table o Contents

Introduction 1

The Childrens Television Act 2

The Issue o Quality in E/I Programming 3

Key Findings 4

The Educational Quality o E/I Programming 4

The Availability o E/I Programming 5

The Content o E/I Programming 7

A Comparison with Public Broadcasting 8

Spotlight on Quality 9

Conclusion 10

Methodology 11

Endnotes 12


3/18

Introduction

childrennow.org 1

any parents today have childhood memories o learning the letter o the dayrom Sesame Streetor how a bill becomes a law rom Schoolhouse Rock. For

those who grew up watching these classic educational programs, there is

little question about televisions ability to enrich young viewers minds. These parents

understand that, in addition to being entertaining, television can also support their

childrens educational development. The key is to fnd programs that contain high-

quality educational content.

Fortunately, television broadcasters are required to air three hours per week o

childrens educational programming and to label those programs with an educational/

inormational (E/I) icon so parents can identiy them. But how educational arebroadcasters E/I shows? Can parents eel confdent that programs designated by

broadcasters as educational do, in act, contain high-quality educational lessons?

What types o lessons do these E/I programs teach? And how likely are parents to fnd

E/I programming on broadcast television during the days and times their children

watch TV? Answering these questions is imperative to understanding the eectiveness

o childrens educational television.

M


4/18

2 Executive Summary: Educationally/Insufcient?

Such practices led the Federal

Communications Commission (FCC)

to clariy its defnition o educational

programming, speciying that such showsmust (a) have education as a signifcant

purpose; (b) have a specifed learning goal

and target audience; (c) be aired on a regular

schedule between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00

p.m.; and (d) be labeled as E/I to identiy

the program to the public as educational/

inormational or children. In addition, the

FCC decided that stations would be expected

to air at least three hours per week o E/I

programming, a policy oten reerred to as

the Three-Hour Rule.

Research has frmly established that quality

educational television programming can

have signifcant positive eects on young

viewers cognitive and social development.1This evidence prompted Congress to enact

the Childrens Television Act o 1990 (CTA)

to ensure commercial broadcast television

stations provide programming specifcally

designed to serve the educational needs

o children in return or the ree use o

publicly-owned airwaves.

Congress passed the CTA with the intention

o increasing the availability o high-quality

educational programs, such as PBSs SesameStreetandMr. Rogers Neighborhood, oncommercial broadcast television. Since

its inception, however, broadcasters have

interpreted the CTA in various, and

sometimes disappointing, ways. For example,

some stations in the early 1990s inamously

claimed that broadcasts oThe Flintstonesand The Jetsonscounted as educational

programming because they taught children

about history and the uture, respectively.2

Congress passed the CTA with the

intention o increasing the availability o

high-quality educational programs, such

as PBSs Sesame Streetand Mr. Rogers

Neighborhood, on commercial broadcast

television.

The Childrens Television Act


5/18

childrennow.org 3

the Childrens Media Policy Coalition, the

FCC adopted additional rules in 2005 that

require broadcasters to include three hours

per week o E/I programming on each otheir digital television channels. This ruling

has the potential to increase the amount

o educational programming available to

children on ree, over-the-air television.

But this increase in quantity will beneft

children only i the educational quality o

the programs is high as well.

This study was undertaken to assess

broadcasters compliance with the CTA and

evaluate the industrys overall perormancein serving the needs o the child audience.

Conducted by leading media scholars Dr.

Barbara J. Wilson (University o Illinois at

Urbana-Champaign) and Dr. Dale Kunkel

(University o Arizona), this research

examines the quantity o E/I programming

oered on commercial broadcast stations

and evaluates the educational quality o the

30 most widely-aired childrens educational

programs. In order to provide a valuable

comparison to help judge the efcacy o theseshows, a small sub-sample o 10 childrens

programs on PBS was also evaluated. Three

randomly-selected episodes o each E/I series

were analyzed or their educational content.

We hope this study will serve as a new

benchmark o broadcasters compliance with

the CTA as we head into the era o digital

television and inspire ederal policy makers,

the media industry and parents to ensure that

all children have sufcient access to qualityeducational television programs.

Unortunately, this broad defnition o

educational does not address one actor

critical to the eectiveness o E/I programs:

the quality o the educational content.Without guidelines to ensure quality

standards, broadcasters have discretion

to apply the E/I label to a wide range o

programs designed or a young audience.

Shortly ater the Three-Hour Rule was

enacted in 1996, Dr. Amy Jordan and her

colleagues at the Annenberg Public Policy

Center at the University o Pennsylvania

began assessing the quantity and quality

o E/I programs on commercial broadcasttelevision.3 Their research revealed that

although most stations oered three hours

o E/I programming each week, the large

majority o shows had only moderate or

minimal educational quality. However, since

2000, no comparable research has been

conducted.

We are now entering a new age o

television. As analog television transitions

to a digital ormat, station owners will beable to broadcast up to six unique digital

channels rather than just one. At the urging

o Children Now and our colleagues in

We are now entering a new age

o television. As analog television

transitions to a digital ormat, station

owners will be able to broadcast up tosix unique digital channels rather than

just one.

The Issue o Quality in E/I Programming


6/18


Key Findings

The Educational Quality

o E/I Programming

I the Childrens Television Act is to serve

its intended purpose, E/I programming

must achieve a reasonable standard o

educational quality. It takes more than a

story with a moral or an academic lesson or

a program to successully teach children.

Educational television must eature certain

characteristics in order to be eective (see

sidebar). Three hours per week is a relatively

small amount o time or broadcasters to

devote to enriching childrens educational

development. Thereore, we must insist

that those ew hours are flled with eective,

highly educational content.

63%23%

13%

Minimally

EducationalModerately

Educational

Highly

Educational

Educational Quality o E/I Episodes

on Commercial Channels

N= 90

Quality o E/I Episodes on Commercial Channels Over Time

Level o Educational Quality

Year Minimal Moderate High

1997-98 26% 46% 29%

1998-99 21% 46% 33%

1999-00 23% 57% 20%

2007-08 23% 63% 13%

The data prior to 2007 come rom Annenberg Public Policy Center reports on E/I programming conducted by Dr. Amy Jordan and

colleagues. (See endnote 3.)

Measuring Educational Quality

Six criteria were used to measure the educational quality o

each episode in the study.

ClarityHow directly or explicitly is the primary lesson

presented?

IntegrationHow oten is the primary lesson repeated or

incorporated in the program?

InvolvementHow engaging or absorbing is the primary

lesson?

ApplicabilityHow connected is the primary lesson to the

real world?

ImportanceHow valuable or useul is the primary lesson

to childrens development?

Positive ReinforcementTo what extent is learning,

including eort and mastery, rewarded?

Each criterion was judged on a 3-point scale rom low (0) to

medium (1) to high (2). Scores were then totaled, resulting in

a possible score o 0-12 or every episode.

Episodes that received a score o 0-6 were considered

minimally educational.


moderately educational.


highly educational.


7/18

childrennow.org 5

Only one in eight E/I episodesearned a rating o highly educational.In contrast, nearly twice as many

were ound to have only minimaleducational value.

l O the 90 episodes analyzed, twelve (13%)

were ound to be highly educational,

meaning they achieved high scores on all

or nearly all o the six quality measures.

l Twenty-one episodes (23%) were judged

to be minimally educational, meaning that

they earned a low score on at least one

criterion and never had more than one

high score.l The largest share o episodes (63%) was

judged to be moderately educational.

There has been a substantial declinein high-quality educational programsover the years.

l The percentage o highly educational

episodes has decreased dramatically rom

previous years, during which highly

educational shows accounted or as muchas one-third o all E/I eorts.

l As the percentage o high-quality episodes

has declined, the percentage o moderately

educational episodes has increased rom

46% in 1997-98 to 57% in 1999-00 and

fnally to 63% in 2007-08.

l The proportion o minimally educational

episodes has remained airly constant with

previous years at nearly one out o every

our programs.

The Availability o

E/I Programming

Since 1996, broadcast stations have

consistently oered at least three hours

per week o E/I programming or children.

It is not surprising, then, that all but one

station in the study reported to the FCC

that they met this minimum requirement.

On average, however, children watch

three hours o televisionper day, every dayo the week.4 Recognizing this, the FCChas previously stated that broadcasters

must provide educational programming tochildren throughout the week, not just on

weekends alone.5

The majority o broadcast stationsappear to treat their three-hourrequirement as a three-hour limit.

l A large majority o stations (59%) provided

the least possible amount o programming

three hours per week, an average o

about 25 minutes per day.

Broadcasters Weekly Hours o

E/I Programming

Amount o

E/I Programming

Percent o

Stations

Less than 3.0 hours per week 1%

3.0 hours per week 59%

3.1 to 4.0 hours per week 37%

4.1 or more hours per week 3%

N= 135


8/18

Key Findings (continued)

l Only 3% o stations exceeded our hours

per week o E/I programming.

l Market size was negatively related with

the amount o E/I programs oered.

Stations in the largest markets delivered

the lowest average amount o childrens

educational shows, at three hours and 10

minutes per week, whereas stations in

the smallest markets averaged the most

programming, at roughly three and a hal

hours per week.

The vast majority o broadcasters

scheduled E/I programming exclusivelyon weekends.

lOnly one-quarter o stations oered

E/I programming on any weekday. The

remaining stations (75%) oered E/I

shows solely on Saturdays or Sundays.

lMarket size was negatively related with

better service to children. The largest

markets had the lowest percentage o

stations that aired weekday programming

(22%), whereas the smallest markets had

the highest percentage (32%).


Market Size

Small Medium Large Major Overall

Average hours per

week3.49 3.41 3.23 3.18 3.32

Stations with any

weekday shows32% 26% 28% 22% 25%

n = 28 n = 35 n = 35 n = 37 N= 135

Amount and Scheduling o Childrens E/I Programming

The Range o Station Commitments to Children

KFVE (Honolulu)This station averaged 5.5 hours per week o childrens E/I

content during the ourth quarter o 2007, placing it near the top

industry-wide in overall amount o programming. It presented

highly-acclaimed shows or dierent age groups, including

Where on Earth is Carmen Sandiego?or younger children

and Beakmans Worldor older children and teens. The station

provided E/I programming every day o the week except Sunday.

KSAT (San Antonio)

This station averaged exactly 3.0 hours per week o core

E/I programming in the ourth quarter o 2007. Its oerings

included fve dierent hal-hour programs, one o which (Thats

So Raven) aired twice each week in back-to-back time slots.

All o the shows were provided by the parent network, so

the stations schedule looked identical to that o most ABC

afliates. Its entire slate o E/I shows appeared solely on

Saturday mornings. Only one o its series (The Suite Lie o

Zack and Cody) scored high in educational quality.

WZMY (Boston)

This station aired just one childrens educational program series,

Degrassi: The Next Generation, during the entire ourth quarter o

2007. Since the series targets children, ages 13-16 (the program

is rated TV-PG), the station provided no service to children, ages

12 and under. In its FCC fling, the station claimed it presented

the show 73 times during the period between October 1 and

December 31, averaging exactly three hours per week overall.

Because this series was in its seventh year o production in 2007,

and it delivered a total o only 24 new episodes that entire year,

the station had to re-run shows rom several previous seasons

in order to ulfll its weekly three-hour minimum requirement.

Programs were oered on weekends and weekdays, but the

schedule varied during the time period studied.


9/18

The Content o

E/I Programming

Social-emotional programs aim to teach

the viewer lie lessons about personal

eelings and interpersonal relationships.

Cognitive-intellectual programs oer

more traditionally academic lessons and

inormation on acts, ideas and concepts

related to existing knowledge or ways o

thinking. A third type o lesson, ocusing

on health and nutrition messages, was also

identifed in the study. In 2005, the Institute

o Medicine called on the media industry

to include more health-related messages

in childrens programs in an eort to help

combat childhood obesity.6 All three types

o content can provide valuable inormation

or children o all ages. An ideal educational

media environment should oer an ample

amount o quality content o each type.

The large majority o E/I episodeseatured social-emotional lessonsrather than academically ocused

cognitive-intellectual lessons.

lTwo out o three episodes (67%) eatured

a social-emotional lesson as the primary

ocus.

lThe majority o lessons in social-emotional

episodes ocused on issues o positive

interaction with others (26%), sel-esteem

(18%) or sel-restraint (12%).

lLess than one in three episodes (30%)

contained a cognitive-intellectual lesson as

the primary message.

Health and nutrition messages wereextremely rare.

lThe remaining 3% o the episodes ocused

on health as the primary lesson. Each o

these health episodes (n = 3) came rom asingle TV series, The Adrenaline Project.

childrennow.org 7

Primary Lessons in Commercial Broadcast

E/I Episodes

67%

Social-emotional

30%

Cognitive-

intellectual

3% Health

N= 90

An ideal educational media environment

should oer an ample amount o quality

cognitive-intellectual, social-emotional

and health-related content.


10/18

Key Findings (continued)

Hundreds o empirical studies have shown

that extensive exposure to television violence

can contribute to the learning o aggressive

attitudes and behaviors in children.7Furthermore, there is growing evidence that

the inclusion o physically violent content

may interere with childrens learning o

social-emotional or cognitive-intellectual

lessons.8 These negative eects o violent

material on childrens behavior and learning

undermine the purpose o E/I programming.

In addition, several recent studies have

documented that children can learn social

aggression rom viewing programs thatdepict and explicitly model such behavior.9

Social aggression reers to behavior

designed to harm another persons sel-

esteem or social status. Although some may

argue that social aggression is necessary

to teach social-emotional lessons about

appropriate interpersonal behavior, all too

oten such behavior is used gratuitously as a

comedic device rather than as a storytelling

device. For example, name-calling and

teasing are used to get a laugh, not to teachthat they are inappropriate behaviors.

Because E/I programs are intended to

teach positive behaviors and not model

inappropriate ones, episodes in this study

were examined or their inclusion o both

physical and social aggression.

A substantial proportion o E/Iprograms eatured high levels oaggression.

lMore than one-quarter o E/I episodes

(28%) was ound to be high in aggressive

content, meaning they contained numerous

instances o either physical or social

aggression throughout the program.

lA high level o aggressive behavior, especially

social aggression, was more likely to be ound

in programs that taught social-emotional

lessons (37%) than in programs that taught

cognitive-intellectual content (7%).

Social aggression was more commonlyeatured than physical violence.

lSocial aggression was ound in over hal

(57%) o all E/I episodes, with 21%

eaturing a lot and 36% containing

some social aggression. Less than hal

o the episodes (43%) contained no social

aggression at all.

lPhysical aggression appeared less requently

in E/I programs, although 40% includedone or more violent depictions.

A Comparison with

Public Broadcasting

To enhance the perspective o the assessment

o E/I programs on commercial broadcast

stations, the content and quality o 10

randomly-selected educational shows on


Amount o Aggression Physical Aggression Social Aggression

A lot 8% 21%

Some 32% 36%

None 60% 43%

Aggression in E/I Episodes on Commercial Channels

Note. For this analysis, N= 90.


11/18

Spotlight on Series Quality

This report has, until now, ocused on the

content and quality o individual E/I episodesthat air on commercial or public broadcast

television. Now we turn our attention to

a broader assessment o program series,

specifcally those that achieved a high level o

educational quality.

childrennow.org 9

Eight commercial and public broadcastseries earned an exemplary rating ortheir educational content.

Sesame Street(PBS)

Beakmans World(Commercial)

Between the Lions(PBS)

3-2-1 Penguins(Commercial)

Cyberchase (PBS)

The Suite Lie o Zack and Cody (Commercial)

Fetch! with Ru Ruman (PBS)

Teen Kids News(Commercial)

It is interesting to note that this is a very

diverse group o programs: they target allage groups, rom toddlers to teens; they deal

with both social-emotional and cognitive-

intellectual subject matter; they are animated

and live action; and they appear on both

commercial and public broadcast stations.

Furthermore, none o these exemplary

programs contained a high amount o

physical or social aggression, underscoring

that eective educational programming can

be accomplished without the use o violence.

Educational Quality o E/I Programming as a Function o

Channel Type

7.9

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Commercial PBS

QualityScore

(0-12)

9.1

PBS were also analyzed. The results reveal

that PBS oers some o the most highly

educational programs on broadcast television

and serves as a model o successul educationalprogramming or commercial broadcasters.

Educational programs on PBS weremore likely to contain high-qualitylessons that ocused on cognitive-intellectual content, and less likelyto contain aggression, than wereprograms on commercial stations.

l Public broadcast episodes scored, on

average, more than a ull point higher on

the quality assessment (9.1) than did thoseairing on commercial channels (7.9).

l The type o primary lesson diered

signifcantly by channel type, as public

broadcast episodes were more likely to

eature a cognitive-intellectual lesson

(55%) than were episodes airing on

commercial stations (31%).

l Commercial stations were more than

twice as likely to oer programs with

high levels o physical or social aggression(28%) compared to public television

stations (13%).


12/18

Recommendations

The FCC

We believe the FCC has a responsibility

to children and their amilies to make sure

that the Childrens Television Act ulflls its

promise. We thereore call on the FCC to

implement the ollowing policy changes:

lStrengthen the guidelines or what

constitutes an E/I program.

lActively monitor broadcasters

compliance with the CTA.

lRespond quickly to public complaintsabout the adequacy o broadcasters

CTA compliance.

Industry

We challenge broadcasters and childrens

television producers to take the ollowing

steps to improve the quality and availability

o their E/I programs:

lConsider the six criteria o highly

educational programs when developingnew productions.

lFind creative ways to teach educational

lessons without resorting to the use o

social or physical aggression.

lOer more programs that emphasize

cognitive-intellectual and health-related

lessons.

lOer more than the required

minimum o three hours per week o

E/I programs, and schedule shows onweekdays as well as on weekends.


Conclusion

Television broadcasters in the United States

have been given a tremendous gitthe

opportunity to use the nations publicly-

owned airwaves ree-o-charge. But withthat opportunity comes the responsibility

to use the power o their resources to

oster the educational development o

young viewers. This research shows that

commercial broadcasters are currently

meeting the minimum time requirements o

the Childrens Television Act by consistently

providing three hours o E/I programming

each week.

We applaud the media companies or adheringto the letter o the CTA, but question whether

their eorts truly live up to the spirit o the

law. When only one in eight E/I episodes

is highly educational and nearly twice as

many are defcient in educational merits;

when ew broadcasters oer more than the

bare minimum o programming and confne

their entire E/I schedule to one or two days

o the week; when more than one-quarter

o E/I shows model harmul violent or

socially-aggressive behavior; and when thevast majority o programs contain no basic

academic or health-related lessons, it is

difcult to see how broadcasters eorts are

sufciently serving the educational needs o

the nations children.

This research illustrates ar too many

weaknesses in the broadcast industrys

eorts to provide childrens educational

programming. Creating the change

necessary to guarantee quality educationaltelevision programming will require

action rom everyone who plays a role in

this system, including policymakers, the

broadcast industry and parents. Following

are Children Nows recommendations

or steps that should be taken by all

stakeholders to ensure the Childrens

Television Act lives up to its promise.

We applaud the media companies or adhering

to the letter o the CTA, but question whether

their eorts truly live up to the spirit o the law.


13/18

Parents

Parents are the gatekeepers o their childrens

media use and thereore have an important

role to play in providing them with high-

quality educational programming. Following

are some steps parents could take to improve

their childrens media environment:

lSeek out programs that display the E/I

symbol on screen.

lWatch television with your kids and

look or the six criteria o highly

educational shows to judge or yoursel

which programs are educational and

which are not (see back cover).

lContact the FCC and fle a complaint

against a station i you eel an E/I show

does not adequately meet educational

standards.

A nationally representative, stratifed sample

o 24 television markets was chosen or

inclusion in this study. The E/I program

oerings or all major commercial broadcastchannels in these markets were examined

during the ourth quarter o 2007, specifcally

ocusing on the amount o E/I programming

oered and the placement o E/I programs in

the stations weekly schedules.

Series that aired in more than one-third o

the sampled markets were identifed, and

three randomly-selected episodes rom

each o those series were recorded between

November 2007 and May 2008 or urtherinvestigation. The content o the episodes

was analyzed using a range o measures,

including the age o the target audience,

the type o educational message, and the

presence o physical and social aggression.

The quality o each episodes primary

educational message was evaluated using an

index o educational value based on six key

criteria: clarity, integration, involvement,

applicability, importance and positivereinorcement (see page 9). Each variable was

judged on a 0-2 scale (0 = low, 1 = medium,

2 = high). Scores or all six criteria were then

summed, resulting in a quality index score or

each episode that could range rom 0 to 12.

Episodes with scores o 6 or less were

classifed as minimally educational; episodes in

this group typically had a low rating (score

o 0) or at least one o the criteria and never

had more than one high rating across all six

criteria. Episodes with scores o 7 to 10 were

classifed as moderately educational. Episodeswith scores o 11 and 12 were rated as high

on at least fve o the six criteria and were

classifed as highly educational. In order toprovide a basis or comparison, three episodes

each o ten randomly selected E/I shows

on PBS were also examined using the same

childrennow.org 11

Methodology

Parents are the gatekeepers o their childrensmedia use and thereore have an important

role to play in providing them with high-quality

educational programming.


14/18

criteria. In addition, quality scores or all three

episodes o each series were averaged. Series

that earned an average quality score o 10 or

above were given an exemplary rating.

For the assessment o physical and social

aggression, we defnedphysical aggression as theovert depiction o a credible threat o physical

orce or the actual use o such orce intended

to physically harm an animate being.10

Examples o physical aggression include

hand-to-hand fghting such as kicking and

punching, use o weapons such as guns and

bombs, and intentionally harmul acts such

as tying someone to railroad tracks. Physicalaggression does not include accidents, natural

disasters or animals attacking other animals in

their natural environment.

Social aggression was defned as any behaviordesigned to harm an animate beings sel-

esteem or social status.11 Examples o social

aggression include derisive name-calling,

socially ostracizing someone, gossiping and

spreading hurtul rumors. We coded the

amount o both physical and social aggressionin E/I episodes. Episodes were judged as

having no aggression (0), some aggression (1)

or a lot o aggression (2).

Complete inormation about all aspects

o the research methodology can be

ound in the ull report, available at www.

childrennow.org/eireport.

Endnotes

1. Kirkorian, H. L., & Anderson, D. R. (2008). Learningrom educational media. In S. L. Calvert & B. J. Wilson(Eds.), The handbook o children, media, and development(pp. 188-213). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Mares, M., & Woodard, E. H. (2005). Positive eectso television on childrens social interactions: A meta-analysis.Media Psychology, 7, 301-322.

2. Center or Media Education (1992). A report onstation compliance with the Childrens TelevisionAct. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University LawCenter, Institute or Public Representation.

Kunkel, D., & Canepa, J. (1994). Broadcasters licenserenewal claims regarding childrens educational program-ming.Journal o Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 38,397- 416.

3. Jordan, A. B. (1998). The 1998 state o childrens televisionreport: Programming or children over broadcast and cabletelevision. Philadelphia, PA: The Annenberg Public PolicyCenter, University o Pennsylvania.

Schmitt, K. L. (1999). The three-hour rule: Is it living upto expectations? Philadelphia, PA: The Annenberg PublicPolicy Center o the University o Pennsylvania.

Jordan, A. B. (2000).Is the three-hour rule living up to itspotential? Philadelphia, PA: The Annenberg Public PolicyCenter o the University o Pennsylvania.

4. Kaiser Family Foundation (2005). Generation M: Media inthe lives o 8-18 year-olds.Menlo Park, CA: Author.

5. FCC, Childrens Television Report and Policy Statement,Nov. 6, 1974, at paragraphs 26-27.

6. Institute o Medicine. (2005)Food marketing to childrenand youth: Threat or opportunity? Washington, D.C.:National Academies Press.

7. Anderson, C.A., Berkowitz, L., Donnerstein, E.,Huesmann, L.R., Johnson, J.D., Linz, D., et al. (2003).The infuence o media violence on youth. Psychological Sciencein the Public Interest, 4, 81-110.

Bushman, B. J., & Huesmann, L. R. (2006). Short-termand long-term eects o violent media on aggressionin children and adults.Archives o Pediatric & AdolescentMedicine, 160, 348-352.

Paik, H., & Comstock, G. (1994). The eects otelevision violence on anti-social behavior: A meta-analysis. Communication Research, 21, 516-546.

8. Bushman, B. J., & Phillips, C. M. (2001). I the television

program bleeds, memory or the advertisement recedes.Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10, 44-47.

Bushman, B. J., & Bonacci, A. M. (2002). Violence andsex impair memory or television ads.Journal o AppliedPsychology, 87, 557-564.

9. Coyne, S. M., Archer, J., & Elsea, M. (2004). Cruelintentions on television and in real lie: Can viewingindirect aggression increase viewers subsequent indirectaggression? Journal o Experimental Child Psychology,88, 234-253.

Martins, N. (2008). Social aggression on television andits relationship to childrens aggression in the classroom.Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University o Illinoisat Urbana-Champaign

Ostrov, J. M., Gentile, D. A., & Crick, N.R. (2006).

Media exposure, aggression, and prosocial behaviorduring early childhood: A longitudinal study. SocialDevelopment, 15, 612-627.

10. Wilson, B., Kunkel, D., Linz, D., Potter, W.,Donnerstein, E., Smith, S., Blumenthal, E., & Gray,T. (1997). Violence in television programming overall:University o Caliornia Santa Barbara study. InNationalTelevision Violence Study, Volume 1.Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage Publications.

11. Galen, B. R., & Underwood, M. K. (1997). Adevelopmental investigation o social aggression amongchildren. Developmental Psychology, 33, 589-600.


Methodology (continued)


15/18

Credits

Research conducted by: Barbara J. Wilson, Ph.D.; Dale Kunkel, Ph.D.;and Kristin L. Drogos, M.A.

Executive Summary written by: Christina Romano Glaubke, M.A.; BarbaraJ. Wilson, Ph.D.; and Dale Kunkel, Ph.D.

Editorial Assistance: Eileen Espejo, Brian Kennedy, Ronald Pineda andKristi Schutjer-Mance.

Design by: Dennis Johnson Design

Acknowledgments

Children Now would like to thank The David B. Gold Foundation, TheGoldman Sachs Philanthropy Fund, and the Otto Haas Charitable Trustor their generous support o this research.

Children Now would also like to thank the ollowing individuals who made

important research and/or technical contributions in the conduct o thisstudy:

University o ArizonaVanessa Garrison and Stephen Whitney

University o Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignZachary Benkowski, Jacquelyn Grimes, Kelsie Hughes, Kylie Hughes,David Isaacson, Caitlin Kolkau, Erica Larivee, Susan Lester, Caroline Roth,Lee Ann Sangalang, Ashley Spinozzi and Ryan Wildy

Children Now Board o Directors

Jane Gardner, Board Chair Harbour Consulting

Peter D. Bewley, Vice Chair The Clorox Company (Retired)Neal Baer, M.D. Wol Films/Universal Television

Laura Casas Frier Foothill-De Anza Community College District

Georey Cowan USC, Annenberg School or Communication

Jim Cunneen Caliornia Strategies, LLC

John Garcia Kaiser Permanente

David G. Johnson Johnson-Roessler Company

Allan K. Jonas Jonas & Associates

Donald Kennedy Science Magazine

Gay Krause Foothill College, Krause Center or Innovation

Ted Lempert Children Now

Lenny Mendonca McKinsey & Company

Theodore R. Mitchell NewSchools Venture FundMolly Munger English, Munger & Rice

Craig A. Parsons Communications Consultant

Hon. Cruz Reynoso UC Davis, School o Law

Karen Schievelbein UnitedHealth Group

Katharine Schlosberg, Ed.D. Educational Consultant

James P. Steyer Common Sense Media

Michael Tollin Tollin/Robbins Productions

Gloria Tristani Spiegel & McDiarmid

Jennie Ward Robinson, Ph.D. Institute or Public Health and Water Research

Grace K. Won Farella Braun + Martel LLP

Parents: Detach this

reerence card to use while

watching television with

your kids. Be sure to look

or the six criteria o highly

educational programs to

judge or yoursel which

shows are educational and

which are not.


16/18

Children Now is a nonpartisan research and

advocacy organization working to raise childrens

well-being to the top o the national policy agenda.

The organization ocuses on ensuring quality

health care, a solid education and a positive media

environment or all children. Children Nows

strategic approach creates awareness o childrens

needs, develops eective policy solutions and

engages those who can make change happen.

Children Now

1212 Broadway, 5th Floor

Oakland, CA 94612

childrennow.org

Phone: 510.763.2444

Email: [email protected]

Printed on recycled paper.


17/18

Parents: Judge or Yoursel!

1. Watch television with your kids.

2. Look or the inclusion o the six criteria o highly educational

programs listed below.

3. Judge or yoursel how educational they really are.

ClarityHow easily can you identify the primary lesson?

A lesson with good clarity is easy to understand, straightorward

and obvious.

A lesson with poor clarity is difcult to identiy and may be

hidden by distractions, unclear dialogue or other subplots within

the episode.

IntegrationHow often do you hear or see the

primary lesson?

A lesson with good integration is repeated or demonstrated

multiple times throughout the episode.

A lesson with poor integration is separated rom other program

content and may not seem related to the main plot or storyline.

InvolvementHow engaging and interesting is the

lesson for the viewer? An episode with good lesson involvement makes a strong and

consistent eort to get the viewers attention. Some techniques

can increase involvement, such as speaking directly to the

viewer, tying the lesson to emotionally involving content and/or

using popular characters.

An episode with poor involvement does not engage the viewer

in the primary lesson.

ApplicabilityIs the primary lesson connected to the

real world?

An episode with good applicability shows how the primary

lesson relates to the everyday experiences o a typical child.

An episode with poor lesson applicability does not demonstrate

how the inormation is relevant to the childs everyday world.

ImportanceHow valuable or useful is the primary

lesson to the viewer?

A lesson that is high in importance is one that is crucial or a child

to learn.

A lesson that is low in importance is one that holds little utility or

a childs development.

Positive reinforcementIs effort or successful learning

rewarded?

An episode that is high in positive reinorcement includes

eatures that support motivation or learning, such as cheering a

character on, rewarding a character or accomplishments, having

a character show pride in what is learned and/or verbally praising

a character. Positive reinorcement also can be delivered directly

to the viewer (e.g., Good job!).

An episode that is low in positive reinorcement does not show

characters receiving praise or rewards or their eort or success

at learning a lesson.

For more inormation visit, www.childrennow.org/eireport.

Parents: Detach this

reerence card to use while

watching television with

your kids. Be sure to look

or the six criteria o highly

educational programs to

judge or yoursel which

shows are educational and

which are not.


18/18

Children Now is a nonpartisan research and

advocacy organization working to raise childrens

well-being to the top o the national policy agenda.

The organization ocuses on ensuring quality

health care, a solid education and a positive media

environment or all children. Children Nows

strategic approach creates awareness o childrens

needs, develops eective policy solutions and

engages those who can make change happen.

Children Now

1212 Broadway, 5th Floor

Oakland, CA 94612

childrennow.org

Phone: 510.763.2444

Email: [email protected]

The guidelines on the reverse are rom Children

Nows study, Educationally/Insufcient? An Analysis

o the Availability & Educational Quality o Childrens

E/I Programming, which is available to the public at

www.childrennow.org/eireport .

Documents

Children Now (TV Programming for Kids Citing PBS as Leader) 2008 Report_Executives Summary