View the step-by-step solution to:

Media Psychology, 14:216-232, 2011 Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1521-3269 print/1532-785X online DOI:1080/15213269.573465...

I need two pages paper until October 15. 

I attached information about paper.

the PDF files are article list to use on my paper and you can choose one of them.

it should be divided part A, and part B. Part A going to be about article and part B about watching TV. TV listed paper 2 document that I attached.

I do not have time to do this :( so please do it for me 

It also should be APA format. thanks.

I will give $30 tips when you finished it! :)

Media Psychology , 14:216–232, 2011 Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1521-3269 print/1532-785X online DOI: 10.1080/15213269.2011.573465 Toddlers’ Learning From Socially Meaningful Video Characters ALEXIS R. LAURICELLA, ALICE ANN HOWARD GOLA, and SANDRA L. CALVERT Children’s Digital Media Center, Department of Psychology, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA Toddlers’ performance on a seriation sequencing task was mea- sured after exposure to a video as a function of the social meaningfulness of the character. Forty eight 21-month-old tod- dlers were randomly assigned to a socially meaningful character video demonstration, a less socially meaningful character video demonstration, or a no exposure control group. Results indicated that toddlers learned the seriation sequencing task better from a video when a socially meaningful character, rather than a less socially meaningful character, demonstrated the task. Our findings demonstrate that toddlers under age two can learn cognitive, logical reasoning skills from a video presentation when the onscreen character is socially meaningful to them. Nearly 80% of toddlers view television or video programs, averaging two hours of screen time per day (Rideout & Hamel, 2006). Although exposure to content on screens is pervasive, infants and toddlers learn better from a live rather than a video presentation (e.g., Barr & Hayne, 1999; Kuhl, Tsao, & Liu, 2003; Schmitt & Anderson, 2002; Troseth & DeLoache, 1998), a phenomenon known as the video deficit (Anderson & Pempek, 2005). Nevertheless, very young children can learn from videos when simple actions are repeated (Barr, Muentener, Garcia, Fujimoto, & Chavez, 2007), the video demonstration is lengthened (Strouse & Troseth, 2008), the experimenter on the screen responds contingently to the child’s actions via closed-circuit Alexis R. Lauricella is currently a Postdoctoral Fellow in the School of Communication at Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois. Address correspondence to Sandra L. Calvert, Children’s Digital Media Center, Depart- ment of Psychology, Georgetown University, 309 White Gravenor, 37th and O Streets, NW, Washington, DC 20057. E-mail: [email protected]edu 216
Background image of page 01
Toddlers’ Learning From Video 217 television (Troseth, 2003), or the mother presents the onscreen task (Krc- mar, 2010). Few studies, however, demonstrate infant and toddler learning from video beyond an exact reproduction of simple tasks (Anderson & Pempek, 2005). This study examines whether toddlers can learn concep- tual information from a video, and, if so, what conditions improve their learning. LEARNING FROM VIDEO Learning from a video is a difficult task for toddlers. More specifically, video is a symbolic medium in which toddlers must transfer symbolic two- dimensional representations to real-world three-dimensional objects and sit- uations (Barr, 2010; Troseth, 2010; Troseth, & DeLoache, 1998). Most studies that examine toddlers’ learning from screens use simple imitation tasks, object search tasks, or language learning (see Anderson & Pempek, 2005, for review). To date, most studies demonstrate that young children experience a video deficit effect (see Anderson & Pempek, 2005). None have studied how toddlers learn a logical-mathematical task from a video screen. There are at least two possible nonexclusive explanations for why tod- dlers face difficulties when learning from video presentations. First, most videos created for infants and toddlers lack socially meaningful charac- ters or social contingency (Krcmar, 2010), making it challenging for very young children to relate to the program or to recognize that they should be learning something from the onscreen content (Troseth, Saylor, & Archer, 2006). Second, learning from videos requires very young children to pro- cess multiple aspects of the presentation simultaneously, such as the nar- ration, the visual images, and the characters (Fisch, 2000). Processing each component of the presentation may be cognitively taxing for them (Barr, 2010). Social Meaningfulness of Video According to Troseth and colleagues (2006), very young children may fail to process video information because it lacks social relevance for them. More specifically, young children are accustomed to learning from social partners who respond contingently to them (Vygotsky, 1978). Therefore, very young children may learn to distrust information presented on videos because it lacks socially contingent replies, which, in turn, disrupts their learning from the video. Krcmar (2010) divides Troseth’s (2006) concept of social relevancy into two distinct parts: social meaningfulness and social contingency. She defines socially meaningful actors as familiar and meaningful in the sense that young children are likely to have learned from them in the past (e.g., mothers).
Background image of page 02
Show entire document
PSY 240: Developmental Psychology Fall 2015 DUE MON OCTOBER 19 in class Paper #2 Assignment For this paper, I’d like you to delve deeper into our discussion of infants and media. In Part A you will choose one of the journal articles listed below (from our special lecture) and go read the actual paper. In Part B , you will watch an episode of a TV show that is popular in the 0-2 years age group. More detailed instructions are below. Please let us know if you have any questions! APA format: You are required to cite any idea that is not your own (this includes summarizing studies). It is expected you will cite in your writing throughout Part A (“in-text citations”). You should also cite any research that supports your opinion in Part B . A reference page is also required (*Note: in APA this page must be titled “References” and not “Works Cited” or “Bibliography”). You do NOT need a title page or running header. See APA Format lecture (posted on Laulima on 10/12/15) and Owl Purdue online: https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/1/. There should also be a physical copy of the APA format reference book in the library. (5 pts) Part A: Academic journal article (~0.75-1 page) Read one of the papers listed below (mentioned in 9/30 lecture) that interests you. The journal articles can be found in the folder on Laulima (Resources Papers Paper 2). Identify the age group of the study. (1 sentence) (4 pts) Summarize the methods they used in the study. How did they set up the study? ( ~3-4 sentences) (8 pts) Summarize the important findings. Were the hypotheses supported? (~ 1 paragraph) (8 pts) *Note: be sure not to use the term “experiment” if an experimental design is not utilized. Part B: TV show analysis (~1-1.25 pages) Watch an episode of one of the shows aimed at children 0-2 years old (see list below). You can find episodes on YouTube or on channel websites (PBS Kids, Nick Jr., Disney Jr.). Identify which show you watched and a brief synopsis of the episode. (~3 sentences) (5 pts) Identify elements (at least two) of the show (see lecture) that may help a baby’s learning and give specific examples of how these were used in the show. (~1 paragraph) (10 pts)
Background image of page 1
Identify elements (at least two) of the show (see lecture) that may hinder a baby’s learning and give specific examples. (~1 paragraph) (10 pts) Format: Written in APA format Name on every page. Double-spaced. Times New Roman, size 12. Maximum 2 pages. If you can fully answer the questions in less space, that works for us, but you will be penalized if you go over 2 pages in length. Late Policy: Papers (hard copy) are due on Monday October 19 before the end of class. If you do not turn it in then, you are subject to late penalizations. (See syllabus p. 2). When turning in late papers, please email me an electronic copy or turn into the Psychology Main Office (Sakamaki C400) and have them time-stamp and place it in my box. Penalizations are as follows: o If turned in between end of class on 10/19/15 and 1:30pm on 10/20/15, you will lose 5 points. o If turned in between 1:31pm on 10/20/15 and 1:30pm on 10/21/15, you will lose 10 points Part A journal articles to choose from (available on Laulima: Resources Papers Paper 2): Barr, R., Shuck, L., Salerno, K., Atkinson, E., & Linebarger, D. (2010). Music interferes with learning from television during infancy. Infant and Child Development, 19 , 313-331. Lauricella, A. R. , Gola, A. A., & Calvert, S. (2011). Toddlers’ learning from socially meaningful video characters. Media Psychology, 14 (2), 216-232. Pempek, T.A., Kirkorian, H. L., Richards, J. E. et al. (2010). Video comprehensibility and attention in very young children. Developmental Psychology, 45, 1283-1293. Part B television shows to choose from (look up any episode on YouTube): Blue’s Clues Curious George Teletubbies Mickey Mouse Clubhouse Barney Daniel Tiger’s Neighborhood The Cat in the Hat knows a lot about that Winnie the Pooh Thomas the Tank Engine Caillou
Background image of page 2
Video Comprehensibility and Attention in Very Young Children Tiffany A. Pempek and Heather L. Kirkorian University of Massachusetts at Amherst John E. Richards University of South Carolina Daniel R. Anderson and Anne F. Lund University of Massachusetts at Amherst Michael Stevens University of South Carolina Earlier research established that preschool children pay less attention to television that is sequentially or linguistically incomprehensible. The authors of this study determined the youngest age for which this effect can be found. One hundred and three 6-, 12-, 18-, and 24-month-olds’ looking and heart rate were recorded while they watched Teletubbies, a television program designed for very young children. Experimenters manipulated comprehensibility by either randomly ordering shots or reversing dialogue to become backward speech. Infants watched 1 normal segment and 1 distorted version of the same segment. Only 24-month-olds, and to some extent 18-month-olds, distinguished between normal and distorted videos by looking for longer durations toward the normal stimuli. The results suggest that it may not be until the middle of the second year that children demonstrate the earliest beginnings of comprehension of video as it is currently produced. Keywords: video, television, infant, attention, heart rate Over the past decade, media specifically produced for infants and toddlers have become widely available. Despite a recommen- dation by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) that chil- dren younger than 2 years have no exposure to electronic screens (American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Public Educa- tion, 1999; 2001), large numbers of infants are exposed to elec- tronic screen media. In a national survey of parents, the Kaiser Family Foundation found that the majority of children younger than 2 years are exposed to screen media in a typical day (Rideout & Hamel, 2006). The failure to follow the AAP guideline may be due to marketing of infant-directed videos and other screen media as being educationally or developmentally beneficial (Garrison & Christakis, 2005). The AAP guideline was adopted in the face of a near complete lack of experimental research on the impact of videos on infants and toddlers and some correlational evidence suggesting a nega- tive impact of early exposure to screen media. Moreover, very little was known at that time about the ability of very young children to comprehend and learn from video despite educational claims made by producers of infant-directed media products (Gar- rison & Christakis, 2005). In their review of some early and more recent research, Anderson and Pempek (2005) hypothesized that there may be a “video deficit” (p. 511), whereby infants learn better from real life than from comparable media experiences (e.g., Barr & Hayne, 1999; Schmitt & Anderson, 2002; Troseth & DeLoache, 1998). If this is so, it may be that infants have difficulty comprehending video. Since comprehension of complex stimuli, such as commercial videos for infants, is difficult to test in such young children, we took a different approach in the current study by examining the relation between comprehensibility of a video and infants’ attention to that video. The goal was to determine at what age children become sensitive to the sequential and linguistic comprehensibility of a television program that is specifically pro- duced for very young children. Of particular interest was how much they actually pay attention to television. Attention to Television In most studies of children’s attention to television, overt look- ing at the screen is used as the proxy measure of attention (for a Tiffany A. Pempek, Heather L. Kirkorian, Daniel R. Anderson, and Anne F. Lund, Department of Psychology, University of Massachusetts at Amherst; John E. Richards and Michael Stevens, Department of Psychol- ogy, University of South Carolina. Heather L. Kirkorian is now at the University of Wisconsin at Madison. This research is based in part on a master’s thesis by Anne F. Lund (formerly Anne E. Frankenfield). Aspects of this research were presented at meetings of the Society for Research in Child Development (March 2007 in Boston, MA) and the International Conference on Infant Studies (May 2004 in Chicago, IL, and March 2008 in Vancouver, BC, Canada). This research was supported by grants awarded to Daniel R. Anderson from the National Science Foundation (BCS-0111811) and John E. Rich- ards from the National Institutes of Child Health and Human Development (R37-HD18942). Findings and opinions expressed in this article do not reflect endorsement by the National Science Foundation or National Insti- tutes of Child Health and Human Development. We wish to acknowledge the following undergraduate students for their assistance with this project: Alexis Lauricella and MinJung Yoon, who completed senior honors theses on aspects of this study; Kate Decker; K. Mindy Jitmanowan, Sean Kennedy, Angela Naniot, and Jill Rosenbaum. We also wish to thank the families who volunteered their time to partici- pate in this project. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Tiffany A. Pempek, who is now at the Department of Psychology, Otterbein University, One Otterbein College, Westerville, Ohio 43081. E-mail: [email protected] Developmental Psychology © 2010 American Psychological Association 2010, Vol. 46, No. 5, 1283–1293 0012-1649/10/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0020614 1283 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Background image of page 01
recent review, see Anderson & Kirkorian, 2006). An early study revealed that children’s looking at Sesame Street increased steadily from 12 to 48 months of age when the children, each accompanied by one parent, watched videos in a laboratory setting with toys available (Anderson & Levin, 1976). At 30 months of age, there was a sharp increase in frequency of looking at the screen in the laboratory that corresponded to parents’ reports of sharply in- creased television viewing at home. Anderson and Lorch (1983) proposed that the increase in viewing around 30 months is due to the development of the cognitive and language skills necessary to begin to understand a program such as Sesame Street . A similar study demonstrated that 2-year-olds attended to Sesame Street in a laboratory setting for approximately a third of the time the televi- sion was on as compared with nearly half of the time for 3.5-year- olds and almost two thirds for 5-year-olds (Anderson, Lorch, Field, & Sanders, 1981). More recent studies have shown higher levels of attention in infants and toddlers, although the contexts in which looking at the screen was measured were somewhat different than in the earlier studies. Using Baby Einstein (i.e., Baby Mozart ) and Sesame Street videos in the homes of 12-, 15-, and 18-month-olds, Barr, Zack, Garcia, and Muentener (2008) found that attention was higher for viewers who had previously seen the video than for those who had not (69.9% for the previous exposure group vs. 59.4% for the nonexposure group). Parenting style also influenced attention, with higher levels of looking by children whose coviewing parents performed more scaffolding-like behaviors during the viewing session (i.e., supportive behaviors aimed at helping the child to reach a goal that is otherwise slightly outside his or her ability; 46.8% for low levels of scaffolding, 68.1% for medium, and 79.2% for high; Barr et al., 2008). These levels of looking are similar to those found by Richards and Cronise (2000) to a Sesame Street movie shown to 6- to 24-month-olds in a minimally distracting laboratory context (67%, 77%, 85%, and 87% for 6-, 12-, 18-, and 24-month-olds, respectively). If infants do, in fact, pay high levels of attention to infant- directed videos (in contrast to relatively low attention paid to programs made for older viewers), is it the case that their attention is being driven by active comprehension processes as hypothesized by Anderson and Lorch (1983)? We examined this question in the present study by comparing infants’ attention to normal videos versus distorted ones that reduce comprehensibility without at the same time affecting salient stimulus features of the videos. Theories of Attention to Television and Development There are two seemingly contradictory perspectives on chil- dren’s attention to television. The first is that perceptually salient formal features of television, such as movement, cuts, zooms, pans, and a variety of auditory features, play a primary role in determining how much attention children pay. In its most basic form, this perspective holds that salient formal features repeatedly elicit the orienting reflex, producing more or less sustained atten- tion (Singer, 1980). The second perspective is that attention to television is primarily driven by and in service of comprehension activities. This perspective holds that television viewing is a learned cognitive activity, and, as such, the components of atten- tion to television are deployed in a skilled manner so that the viewer can comprehend the ongoing content (Anderson & Lorch, 1983). A third perspective, however, subsumes both ideas. This perspective posits that children’s attention to television is initially and primarily driven by salient formal features, but with matura- tion and viewing experience, attention comes under active and learned control with perceptual saliency continuing to play a role (Huston & Wright, 1983). Research with older children has provided support for all three perspectives. Specifically, formal features can elicit orienting re- actions, looking is influenced by cognitive processing of content, and there are substantial changes in children’s attention to televi- sion with development. For a review of findings on these perspec- tives, see Anderson and Kirkorian (2006). However, very little research of this type has been conducted with children younger than the age of 2. The theory that there is a developmental shift in attention to television corresponds to Ruff and Rothbart’s (1996) more general theory of the early development of attention. Ruff and Rothbart maintained that there are two major systems of attention that arise during the first and second years of life. They proposed that newborns initially attend to high-contrast patterns and contours and have difficulty disengaging attention. However, a slight in- crease in control is achieved both with the onset of the orienting– investigative system (which arises between 3 and 9 months of age) and with the achievement of reaching and mobility. This system is associated with exploratory behavior as well as with a propensity to orient toward novelty. The second system, which gradually becomes more prominent than the first, is associated with a higher level of control over attention beginning around 18 months of age. Once this system begins to operate, children are better able to shift and inhibit attentional engagement. The onset of this system is thought to result from a qualitative shift caused in part by brain development as well as growth in closely related skills such as planning and language. Considered in light of the three theories of attention to television, Ruff and Rothbart’s view of development might help to shed light on potential changes that occur in attention to television during the first few years of life. Attentional Inertia Detailed analyses of looking at television reveal a pattern called attentional inertia (Anderson, Alwitt, Lorch, & Levin, 1979), which is a central aspect of the comprehensibility theory that posits that television viewing is a learned cognitive activity and that children’s attention to television is driven by comprehension pro- cesses (Anderson & Lorch, 1983). A number of phenomena are associated with attentional inertia. The longer one maintains a look at the television, the greater one’s attentional engagement, as indicated variously by measures of reaction time, distractibility, recognition memory, and comprehension (see Anderson & Kirko- rian, 2006). Moreover, physiological measures of engagement (i.e., heart rate) are correlated with look duration (e.g., Richards & Cronise, 2000). Because this increased engagement reduces the effectiveness of external distractors (Anderson, Choi, & Lorch, 1987; Richards & Turner, 2001), it consequently produces a look distribution such that the probability of looking away from the screen diminishes the longer the look is maintained (Anderson et al., 1979). This pattern results in a lognormal distribution of look lengths that has been observed in television viewers ranging in age 1284 PEMPEK ET AL. This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Background image of page 02
Show entire document
Sign up to view the entire interaction

Top Answer

Great question... View the full answer

Videos and Todlers.docx

Videos and Toddlers
Part A
The age group in which it is covered by the study is 21-month-old toddlers who lived in
Washington DC metropolitan area.
Methods of the study
Observation method was used...

Sign up to view the full answer

Why Join Course Hero?

Course Hero has all the homework and study help you need to succeed! We’ve got course-specific notes, study guides, and practice tests along with expert tutors.

-

Educational Resources
  • -

    Study Documents

    Find the best study resources around, tagged to your specific courses. Share your own to gain free Course Hero access.

    Browse Documents
  • -

    Question & Answers

    Get one-on-one homework help from our expert tutors—available online 24/7. Ask your own questions or browse existing Q&A threads. Satisfaction guaranteed!

    Ask a Question
Ask a homework question - tutors are online