Name: Anna Tereza Diamessis
Student Number: 10396888
Supervisor: Jessica Taylor Piotrowski, Ph. D.
The Association of Educational Media and Parent Mediation on
Preschoolers’ Language Development
Master Thesis
Graduate School of Communication
Abstract
The aim of this research was to evaluate whether children’s exposure to educational media content - televised and game content - is positively associated with children’s oral language skills (H1), as well as to identify whether active mediation (H2) and co-viewing/co-playing (H3) by parents may moderate this relationship. Based on the propositions of the Differential
Susceptibility to Media Effects Model (DSMM), as well as evidence for the benefits of parental mediation, it was expected that parent mediation, both active mediation and co-viewing/co-playing, would enhance the positive relationship between educational media use and children’s oral language skills. To test hypotheses, 131 Greek-speaking parents of children aged three to five years old participated in a cross-sectional survey. Parents completed assessments detailing their child’s educational media use and oral language skills as well as their own parental mediation practices. Results, in part, supported study hypotheses. Educational media was negatively associated with children’s oral language skills. However, as expected, both active mediation and co-viewing/co-playing moderated the relationship between educational media use and oral language skills such that increased parental mediation weakened the negative
relationship between media and language. Potential reasons for the unexpected negative
relationship between media and language, as well as empirical and practical implications of this work are discussed.
Keywords: active mediation, co-viewing/co-playing mediation, educational media, oral
The Association of Educational Media and Parent Mediation on Preschoolers’ Language Development
In the past decades, we have seen an explosion of media targeting young children (six and under). Dora the Explorer, for example, is an educational animated television series, targeting children from two to six years old, in which “Dora and her friends go on quests and help others, encouraging viewers to help out through their own actions or by telling her what she needs to know. In addition to highlighting traditional educational content such as color and shapes, Dora teaches language by repeating words and phrases” (pp. 41, Kirkorian, Wartella & Anderson, 2008; Piotrowski, 2014). Beyond its enormous popularity, this show has become an enormous financial success – highlighting the potential profitability of preschool media. And these
successes are not limited to Dora the Explorer. Other successful shows targeted at young children include animated television shows such as Sesame Street, Bob the Builder, Thomas & Friends, and Super Why! as well as video games such as Big Brain Academy and Intro to Math. Alongside this packed media landscape, we see that today’s households are similarly equipped with a range of media devices. Recent American data, for example, suggests that about 73% of children between two and four years old watch television on a daily basis, 53% have used a computer, and 44% have played a console video game (Rideout, 2011). International comparisons show similar trends for children’s access and use of television in other industrialized countries as well (Fisch, Truglio & Cole, 2009; Mares & Pan, 2013). The financial success of preschool-targeted mediated content, combined with the omnipresence of media in the preschoolers’ lives, has resulted in what some call a mediated childhood (Livingstone, 2009).
Mediated Childhood
Perhaps unsurprisingly, media’s role in the lives of young children has been met with many concerns. Many parents, researchers, and public policy makers have bemoaned the ill of
effects of media on children. The contemporary debate on the negative effects of media usually takes one of two forms. In some cases, critics of media argue that extensive media use is linked to a host of unhealthy outcomes (e.g. poorer executive functioning and attention, Christakis,
Zimmermann, DiGuseppe & McCarthy, 2004), and that, by virtue of the time spent with media, other healthy behaviors are displaced (Anderson & Hanson, 2009).
In other cases, critics argue that it is not the amount of media per se but rather the type of content consumed (Kirkorian, Wartella & Anderson, 2008). These content-based arguments include reference to data which shows, for example, how violent content exposure is positively associated with aggression (Bushman, Huesmann & Whitaker, 2009; Comstock & Powers, 2012), how sexual content exposure is positively associated with early sexual initiation (Fischer, Hill, Grube, Bersamin, Walker & Gruber, 2009; Ward & Friedman, 2006), and how advertising exposure is positively associated with materialistic attitudes (Buijzen & Valkenburg, 2003).
While the content concerns associated with media exposure are certainly valid, implicit in these concerns is the notion that children learn from media content. Just as children can learn violent behavior from violent media content, it stands to reason that they can learn prosocial behavior from prosocial content (Fisch & Bernstein, 2001). And in fact, this supposition is widely supported in the literature with research showing that, when media are developed with an
understanding of children’s development and an explicit intent to support educational or prosocial outcomes, children benefit (Schmidt & Anderson, 2007). Meta-analytic work, for example, has shown that children’s exposure to international co-productions of Sesame Street is associated with improved cognitive outcomes, learning about the world, social reasoning, and attitudes toward out-groups (Mares & Pan 2013). Similarly, other research has shown that early exposure to age-appropriate programs designed around an educational curriculum is associated with cognitive and academic enhancement in preschool children (Kirkorian et al., 2008), and that
these effects can last well into the adolescent years (Anderson, Huston, Schmitt, Linebarger, Wright & Larson, 2001).
This growing body of research on the benefits of educational media, combined with evidence which suggests educational media is particularly profitable during the preschool years (Hendershot, 2011), has resulted in a wealth of educational media opportunities for young children. According to Rideout (2014), two to four year olds spend more time per day on educational media than any other age group (1:16 hours per day). Given the enormous size and consistent growth of the educational media landscape for preschoolers (Fisch, 2007; Kirkorian et. al, 2008, Fisch, 2009), it is reasonable for researchers to investigate how and when educational media may benefit young children. In fact, just recently, scholars have called for more research which addresses the how and when of media effects – noting that too many studies treat media effects as universal rather than considering conditional variables which might explain which children are most susceptible to the (positive) effects of media. To help address this call and extend our knowledge on the opportunities of educational media for children, this study seeks to identify how contextual factors (in this case, parent mediation style) influence whether preschool-aged children experience the benefits of educational media.
Educational Media
Educational media is defined as any type of media designed to convey educational concepts which can include aspects of both declarative knowledge (historical facts) and
procedural knowledge (problem-solving strategies) (Fisch, 2007). Although educational media can take on a range of forms, educational television and video games are the most popular in preschool years (Rideout, 2014). Rideout (2014) found that approximately 45% of American children aged two to four years old watch educational television (1:20 hours per day) and that approximately 21% play educational video games, including computer, mobile and console
games (15 minutes per day). When looking at overall screen media exposure, analyses indicate that approximately 78% of total screen media exposure is educational for this young audience.
When it comes to the educational effectiveness of television, it is well established that children can and do learn from this medium (Anderson & Hanson, 2010; Fisch, 2000).
Significant, positive effects of exposure to educational television have been found among preschool children in a broad variety of areas, including language and literacy (Linebarger, Kosanic, Greenwood & Doku, 2004; Linebarger & Piotrowski, 2009), mathematics and problem solving (Crawley, Anderson, Wilder, Williams, & Santomero, 1999), science and technology (Cambre & Fernie, 1985), and school readiness (Wright, Huston, Murphy, Peters, Pinon, Scantlin & Kotler, 2001).
Perhaps because of its popularity and availability, most of the evidence on the benefits of educational media has focused upon television. Fewer studies, in comparison, have demonstrated that digital media - such as video games, computer games, tablets and console games - can also be educational (Hisrich & Blanchard, 2009; Young, Slota, Cutter, Jalette, Mullin, Lai &
Yukhymenko, 2012; Blumberg & Fisch, 2013). However, newer research with older children (aged eight to eighteen years old) does indicate that digital media can also support educational outcomes. For example, a review of over three hundred studies revealed that video games are a particularly effective way to support language learning, history, and physical education (Young et al., 2012). Fisch, Lesh, Motoki, Crespo and Melfi (2011) similarly found that third and fourth graders showed improvements in mathematical reasoning skills and strategies after having played an online game emphasizing these skills while Blumberg, Altschuler, Almonte, and Mileaf (2013), in their review, argued that the empirical literature thus far demonstrates that video game play can support the academic skills of children and adolescents. Furthermore, although limited in size and scope, research with tablet apps which have been developed as extensions of
educational television programs (e.g., Martha Speaks, Super Why!) has similarly shown that digital media can support the educational outcomes of preschool-aged children (Chiong and Shuler, 2010).
Educational Media and Language Development
While the benefits of educational media have been demonstrated across a host of
outcomes, one of the largest areas of research has been on the opportunities of educational media to support preschoolers’ vocabulary skills (Linebarger & Vaala, 2010; Dalton & Grisham, 2011; Mares & Pan, 2013). Preschool-aged children (i.e. three to five years old) are considered to be in the preoperational stage of development (Piaget, 1970). This is a time when children experience significant cognitive growth and show tremendous advances in the breadth and detail of their general knowledge, in large part because of enhancement in cognitive skills (Bukatko, 2008). Moreover, it is a critical period for language development. We see, for example, that in
toddlerhood, children are just learning to produce more than one word at a time to express ideas, needs and desires. The number of new words that the child learns grows rapidly from this age through the preschool years. By the time they enter school, children know more than 14 000 words (Carey, 1978). The ability to understand and use language represents two of the most important developmental competencies that children must master during the first three years of life, and this mastery continues to experience significant growth and developing throughout early childhood (Hoff, 2006).
Language development results from a combination of factors arising from both biological and environmental sources. An ecological explanation of language development includes, as the major mechanisms of change, the quantity and quality of both verbal and nonverbal social interactions (Gauvain, 2001; Hoff, 2006). Starting in infancy and continuing throughout childhood, children observe and participate in a variety of social exchanges as they learn about
the functions and forms of language. Social interactions represent the major source of linguistic assistance needed to endure that children are both biologically equipped and socially motivated to learn language do so (Bruner, 1977, 1983). In addition to social interactions, early language development is also stimulated by the linguistic input that children hear on a regular basis. The most direct and influential linguistic sources are parents, siblings, other children, adults living in the immediate household, and the numerous other environmental sounds to which children are exposed (Linebarger & Vaala, 2010).
Given the crucial role of language development during early childhood, combined with the fact that media represent “environmental sounds” which most children are exposed to on a daily basis, it is not surprising that many researchers have asked whether and how media may influence the language development of young children (Linebarger & Vaala, 2010). With the exception of Christakis and his colleagues (2009) who state that audible television is associated with decreased exposure to discernible human adult speech and decreased child vocalizations, most researchers agree that media can support language skills by working in the same way as other linguistic sources (Mares & Pan, 2013, Chiong & Shuler 2010). For example, media can mimic explicit prompting routines (Brown, 2000), a form of conversation in which children are told what to say as well as engage in sustained conversation across multiple turns. Shows such as
Dora the Explorer engage preschool children in such conversations by breaking the imaginary
fourth wall and inviting the child to participate in the television experience. In Dora the Explorer, Dora asks viewers which part of the story they like the most, then she pauses to give viewers a chance to respond, and then follows up by saying “I liked that part too”. Longitudinal evidence (via parent report) has indeed shown that increased exposure to television content with explicit prompting routines is associated with an increase in young children’s vocabulary size as well as an increase in sophisticated language use (Linebarger & Walker, 2005).
Explicit prompting routines are only one way that media may work as a linguistic source. There are many other ways that media can support language development. For example, in an experimental study, Linebarger and Piotrowski (2009) found that exposure to narrative-structured developmentally-appropriate television content predicted increased story understanding,
particularly oral story retelling. Another study by Linebarger, Piotrowski and Greenwood (2009), found that emerging readers experience significant language and literacy gains from exposure to on-screen print (in this case, captions) because the content is perceived as both interesting and cognitively challenging and thus within their “travelling lens” (Linebarger et al., 2004). They further add that captions, which are visible on-screen, provide an opportunity for children to read while viewing. Presenting words onscreen, when combined with visual information and
accompanying audio content, allows children to match the printed word to its on-screen aural and visual referent. This combination of visual and verbal inputs is an effective means of supporting language development (Linebarger et al., 2009). As these and other empirical studies show, by acting as a linguistic source, educational media can support preschoolers’ language development (Linebarger & Vaala, 2010; Wright et al., 2001). What remains to be understood, however, is whether or not this relationship is true for all children or - more likely - if this relationship is particularly true for certain children.
Theoretical Background on Educational Media and Language Development
Although the existing studies provide sufficient evidence to advance the argument that educational media supports language development in childhood, these studies do little to highlight which children are most susceptible to these benefits. One example of work that has tried to investigate the nuances of the educational media language relationship is that by Liebeskind, Piotrowski, Lapierre & Linebarger (2013). In this cross-sectional study, the
children’s language development. Their study revealed that parent-child interactions are
independently associated with language development, and further found that for certain types of media (i.e radio, books), parent-child interaction mediated the relationship between media use and language skills. With the exception of Liebeskind et al. (2013), the limited attention to the role of individual differences is concerning. The heart of media effects research lies in the belief that individuals are affected differentially by media content (Valkenburg & Peter, 2013). In other words, not all children are presumed to be affected by educational media in the same way. By ignoring conditional media and/or controlling for individual differences, we are likely to make invalid conclusions about the magnitude of media’s influence on children’s language
development (Valkenburg & Peter, 2013).
To help researchers address the limited attention given to individual differences,
Valkenburg & Peter developed the Differential Susceptibility to Media Effects Model (DSMM; Valkenburg & Peter, 2013). The DSMM is an integrative model designed to explain why some individuals are more susceptible to media effects than others. The model consists of an integrated set of propositions that predict relationships between both media and non-media variables.
Specific to individual susceptibility to media content, Valkenburg and Peter (2013) argue that media effects are dependent upon three types of non-media variables, notably dispositional, developmental and social variables. Dispositional susceptibility is defined as all person
dimensions that predispose the selection of and responsiveness to media. This includes gender, personality, temperament, cognitions, attitudes, beliefs, values, motivations and moods.
Developmental susceptibility is defined as “the selective use of, and responsiveness to, media due to cognitive, emotional and social development” (pp. 226). And lastly, social susceptibility is defined as “social-context factors that can influence an individual’s selective use of and
interpersonal context such as family or peers, on a meso level, which refers to institutional context such as school or work, and on a macro level, which refers to societal connect such as cultural norms and values (Valkenburg & Peter, 2013). All three forms of differential
susceptibility variables are argued to influence both the selection of media content as well as the response to media content. In other words, they reflect individual differences in the likelihood of selecting certain content as well as being affected by this content. Although one can consider many different variables that might reflect susceptibility to educational media, Liebeskind et al.’s (2013) research suggests that it is most relevant to focus on the social dimension - namely parents - when evaluating which children are most susceptible to the positive benefits of educational media on language development, since parents and media are two of the most important sources of new vocabulary and language skills for children (Liebeskind et al., 2013).
Parent Mediation
In the context of media and parenting, one of the most well cited areas of research is parental media mediation. Defined as parental management of the relationship between children and the media, it extends the parental role beyond simple media restrictions to encompass also conversational and interpretive strategies (Valkenburg, Krcmar, Peeter & Marseille, 1999), as well as parental monitoring activities (Stattin & Kerr, 2000). In its dual role, the DSMM posits that parental mediation will not only impact media consumption (i.e., by restricting or stimulating the use of select media content), but will also impact the effects of media content (e.g., by
mitigating the influence of violent media content).
Although the mediation strategies that parents use are diverse, earlier studies have
identified three common strategies (Nathanson, 2001; Valkenburg et al., 1999). The first strategy, restrictive mediation, refers to parents’ efforts to restrict the time that their children spend with media or the content that they are exposed to. The second strategy, active mediation, denotes
parents’ attempts to explain media content to their children and to convey their opinions about certain media content. The third strategy, co-viewing or co-playing, refers to the extent to which parents use media together with their children, without actively engaging in discussions
(Valkenburg, Krcmar, Peeter & Marseille, 1999). From a DSMM perspective, it is reasonable to argue that while restrictive media use is a social susceptibility factor that likely predicts media usage, active mediation and co-viewing are social susceptibly factors that are more likely to influence the effects of media content.
Existing research on active mediation and co-viewing indicates that both behaviors are likely to enhance the effects of educational media. For example, research with active mediation revealed that kindergartners whose parents received training on verbal labeling and role playing increased the effectiveness of a prosocial television program on vocabulary learning and helping behaviors (Friedrich & Stein, 1975). Other research by Reiser and colleagues (1984), in which preschool aged children watched Sesame Street, similarly demonstrated that children who received adult teaching during viewing (e.g., asking the child to label what was on the screen, drawing attention to the screen) learned significantly more content from the program. In terms of co-viewing, the existing work has shown that co-viewing can be particularly beneficial for children. For example, children whose parents co-viewed educational television learned more from the material than other children (Salomon, 1977; Ball & Bogatz, 1970). Moreover, recent research has shown that in the context of educational video games, children who co-play with parents tend to experience more positive effects than their peers who played alone (Nikken & Jansz, 2006).
The Current Study
Although the parental mediation literature has been growing in the past decades, with the exception of the examples stated here, the majority of existing studies focus on media more
generally rather than educational media content, specifically (e.g. Livingstone, 2005; Nikken & Jansz, 2006). This is surprising when one considers the fact that educational media are generally shown to have a positive influence on children’s development, and moreover, that active
mediation and co-viewing are associated with increased learning of (any) media content. Equally problematic, the majority of existing studies that have investigated mediation have predominantly focused on television viewing among older children (Livingstone & Helsper, 2008; Nikken & Jansz, 2006; Van Den Bulck & Van Den Bergh, 2000), thus excluding many newer digital media formats (Alper, 2013) as well as children in early childhood. These three gaps (educational media, media type, age) highlight an important opportunity for new research. Through a cross-sectional study with parents of children three to five years old, this study is designed to address these gaps by (1) focusing exclusively on educational media content - operationalized as both televised and game content - and (2) asking how parent mediation, namely active mediation and co-viewing or co-playing, may influence the relationship between educational media content and language development.
Based on the extant literature (e.g., Linebarger & Vaala, 2010; Chiong & Shuler, 2010), it is hypothesized that educational media content is positively associated with language
development (H1). Moreover, guided by predictions of the DSMM and the existing mediation literature, it is hypothesized that active mediation and co-viewing will moderate the relationship between educational media content and language development such that increased active
mediation and increased co-viewing, in the presence of increased educational media exposure, will result in superior language development (H2, H3) among preschool-aged children.
H1: Educational media use is positively correlated with oral language skills in children three to five years old.
H2: Active mediation moderates the relationship between educational media use and oral language skills in children three to five years old - such that increased active mediation strengthens the relationship.
H3: Co-viewing or co-playing mediation moderates the relationship between educational media use and oral language skills in children three to five years old - such that increased co-viewing or co-playing mediation strengthens the relationship.
By identifying whether and if parent mediation enhances children’s susceptibility to the benefits of educational media - in this case, the benefits of educational media for language development, this research can provide clear statements as to how parents and teachers can maximize the educational potential of educational media with the children in their lives.
Method Research Design
To address hypotheses, a cross-sectional survey was conducted. The independent
variables in this study are educational media use and parent mediation. The dependent variable is oral language use.
Participants
A convenience sample of 131 parents participated in this study. Given the language of the survey and the target age of children in this sample, participants were Greek speaking parents of children three to five years old (Child Age M = 4.25, SD = 0.73; 66 boys; 65 girls). The
recruitment occurred through two kindergartens in Greece, one private and one public, as well as via social network sites (e.g. Facebook, Twitter) and blogs/forums for parents. Table 1 (see Appendix 5, pp. 49) provides more detailed descriptive statistics of this sample, including relevant demographic information.
The measures in this study were designed to assess educational media use, parent mediation, oral language use, and socio-demographic variables. All measures were available in English. These measures were translated into Greek. Translation required several steps. First, one native Greek speaker, also fluent in English, independently translated all items. A second native Greek bilingual speaker then merged these translations, resolving any differences in translation. A third native Greek speaker translated the items back into English. Finally, these back
translations were compared to the original versions for equivalency and revised as needed. This translation process went through several iterations until each item was determined to be an accurate translation of the original.
Parent mediation. Parent mediation served as an independent variable in this study.
Developed by Valkenburg et al. (1999) and used successfully in a host of research studies (e.g. Livingstone & Helsper, 2010; Buijzen & Valkenburg, 2005) parents completed two subscales of the parent mediation scale for television – namely, the active mediation and co-viewing scale. Parents also completed two subscales of the parent mediation scale for video games (Nikken & Jansz, 2006) – again, the active mediation and co-playing scale. All items evaluate the frequency with which parents use various means to mediate their child's television viewing and video game use. Responses were coded using a Likert scale using the following response options: never (0), rarely (1), sometimes (2), or often (3). Parents were also given the option of responding to items as not applicable. Not applicable items were coded as missing values.
In total, 18 questions were asked, 10 regarding active mediation (M = 1.99, SD = .72, a = .87) and 8 regarding co-viewing or co-playing (M = 2.04, SD = .62, a = .78). Means across the items were calculated to arrive at two scores (active mediation score; co-viewing/co-playing score) for each participant. Higher scores on the Likert scale indicate greater levels of parent mediation. Appendix 1 (pp. 39-40) lists all of the administered items in their entirety.
Educational media use. Educational media use served as an independent variable in this
study. Adapted from Rideout et al. (2010), and used successfully in other research studies to measure general viewing amounts (Bleakley, Piotrowski, Hennessy & Jordan, 2013), parents were asked to report the amount of time their child spends watching television with educational content on a typical weekday between (1) the time the child wakes up and noon, (2)
between noon and 6 PM, and (3) between 6 PM and the time the child falls asleep. These
questions were repeated for a typical weekend day. Watching educational television was defined as watching educational TV shows, DVDs, or movies on a television set or a computer, such as
Dora, the Explorer, Little Bill and Little Einstein. The identical questions were asked for video
game use with educational content. Playing educational video games was defined as playing educational computer games, tablet, mobile and console games, such as Clever, The Kids Play and My First Words. See Appendix 2 (pp. 41-42) for all questions.
To calculate an average daily estimate of time spent viewing educational television, the duration that the parent reported their child viewed educational television on both a typical weekday and typical weekend day were summed. These estimates were used to calculate an average daily estimate of educational television use ((weekday *5 + weekend *2) / 7) in hours. The same calculation was replicated for educational video game play. Once both values were calculated, a sum was taken to reflect average number of hours per day watching educational television and playing educational video games. On average, children in this sample reported 2.45 hours per day (SD = 2.29, Range = 0 to 11.71 hours) of educational media use.
Oral language use. Oral language use served as the dependent variable in this study.
Developed by Dickinson et al. (2003), the language use subscale of the Teacher Rating of Oral Language and Literacy (TROLL) was used to measure oral language use. Although this is typically used as a teacher report, scale authors acknowledge that parents can also serve as a
source for ratings using the TROLL scale. Although it is not yet validated with a Greek sample (only validated with an American sample), efforts are ongoing to validate this sample. The TROLL scale was translated and adapted to Greek standards by Dr. Ralli, Assistant Professor in Developmental Psychology at the University of Athens. This translation has been provided by Dr. Ralli for use in this study.
In total, parents were asked 8 questions concerning their child’s language use (see Appendix 3, pp. 43-45). Responses were recorded using a four point scale ranging from 1 to 4 with different responses for each question. The scores for each item were summed together to arrive at a total score (maximum = 32 points). Children in this sample scored relatively high on this assessment (M = 27.63, SD = 3.23), with a minimum score of 18 and a maximum of 32.
Demographics. Given the cross-sectional nature of the study, it was important to evaluate
socio-demographic information in order to identify potential demographic control variables - as well be able to describe the participants in this study. The following variables were assessed: child’s age, child’s gender, responding parents’ gender, responding parents’ marital status, responding parents’ education, amount of available media in the household, and possible child disabilities. Appendix 4 (pp. 46-48) lists the question items in their entirety. Table 1 (see Appendix 5, pp. 49) lists the descriptive statistics associated with these demographic variables.
Social Desirability. Given the topic at hand, it was probable that parents may provide
socially desirable responses. To help address the concern of social desirability, a social desirably scale was administered to all parents. Adapted from Manganelli et al. (2000), the scale is
composed of 6 items in which parents are asked to identify whether a specific situation or behavior accurately reflects their child. Responses were recorded using a True/False response option. Three items (#2, 4, 5) required reverse coding. Items were summed with higher scores
reflecting greater likelihood of providing socially desirable responses (M = 3.18, SD = 1.45). Appendix 4 (pp. 46-48) lists these items in their entirety.
Procedure
After receiving approval from the University of Amsterdam ethics board, parents were recruited for participation through two Greek kindergartens, through the use of a social networks (e.g. Facebook, Twitter), and via blogs/forums for parents. A printed copy of the survey was provided to the parents in the kindergartens. An online survey was also made available for these parents as well as for any parents recruited via social networks and blogs/forums. Parents could select either format based on their preference. Participants were reassured that their answers would remain confidential, anonymous and that no personally identifiable information would be collected. They were informed that the survey would last approximately 10-12 minutes. After completing the questionnaire, respondents were thanked for their participation and provided contact information for the principal investigator.
Analytic Approach
After reaching the necessary number of responses, the data was analyzed using SPSS Statistics (v. 20). Descriptive statistics of all variables were first calculated to describe the data, as well as to identify any missing values and potential outliers. For Hypothesis 3, one outlier was detected, and as a result the hypothesis was tested twice, one without the outlier and one with the outlier. In the results section, more details are provided regarding this dual-testing.
Next, it was important to determine appropriate control variables. Given that literature indicates that age and gender are expected to covary with oral language skills, both were determined to be appropriate covariates in statistical models. Child age was calculated in years. Gender was represented as a dummy variable (female = 1). Given the likelihood of socially desirable responses, a control variable reflecting social desirability likelihood (Belacchi & Farina,
2012) was also included in all statistical models. This variable is a ratio level in which higher scores indicate greater likelihood to provide socially desirable responses. All other demographic variables (see Table 1, Appendix 5, pp. 49) were inspected for their relationship with the
dependent variable (oral language). No associations were found, and thus these variables were inappropriate for model inclusion.
Following this procedure, all hypotheses were tested using ordinary least squares
regressions. Model assumptions for OLS regression were tested and confirmed. To test whether parental mediation and educational media use interact to predict oral language skills, two
interaction terms were created (active mediation * educational media use; co-viewing/co-playing * educational media use). Tables 3, 4 and 5 (see Appendix 5, pp. 51-53) present a complete accounting of the statistical models, while Table 2 (see Appendix 5, pp. 50) presents a correlation matrix across all model variables.
Results Hypothesis 1
Hypothesis 1 posited that educational media use is positively correlated with oral
language skills among children three to five years old. As shown in Table 3 (see Appendix 5, pp. 51), results indicated that educational media use, age, gender and social desirability explained 11.2% of the variance, F (4, 125) = 5.09, p = .001, R² = .11. Educational media use significantly predicted oral language use scores, b = -.43, b* = -.31, t(125) = -3.68, p < .001, but in the reverse direction than was hypothesized. Hypothesis 1 was thus rejected.
Hypothesis 2
Hypothesis 2 posited that active mediation moderates the relationship between
educational media use and oral language skills among children three to five years old, such that increased active mediation strengthens the relationship between educational media use and oral
language skills. As shown in Table 4 (see Appendix 5, pp. 52), the model was statistically significant, F (6, 123) = 6.49, p < .001, R² = .20. The results of the regression indicated that educational media use, age, gender, social desirability, active mediation and the moderator explained 20.3% of the variance. Relevant to hypothesis 2, the interaction term representing the moderation effect of active mediation on the relationship between educational media and oral language was statistically significant, b = .6, b* = 1.01, p = .001.
In order to interpret this significant moderation, this interaction was plotted (see Figure 1, pp. 54). As depicted in this plot, the negative relationship between educational media use and oral language skills (as reported in hypothesis 1) is much more pronounced among children whose parents employ little active mediation strategies. In comparison, for children whose parents frequently engage in active mediation strategies, the negative relationship between educational media use and oral language use is much smaller. Increased levels of active mediation seem to act as buffer in the relationship between educational media use and oral language skills. Recall that hypothesis 2 posited that the joint effect of educational media use and active mediation would be associated with the greatest oral language skills. This hypothesis presumed that educational media use would be positively associated with oral language outcomes. As tests for hypothesis 1 demonstrate, the relationship between educational media use and oral language is opposite the hypothesized direction. Given this counter finding, it is no longer reasonable to expect that the greatest oral language will result from the combination of educational language and active mediation. However, as shown here, active mediation seems to weaken this negative
relationship. So, while it was originally anticipated that active mediation would strengthen the positive association between educational media and oral language, the results instead indicate it is weakening the negative relationship. Thus, hypothesis 2 was partly supported.
Hypothesis 3 posited that co-viewing or co-playing mediation moderates the relationship between educational media use and oral language skills among children three to five years old, such that increased co-viewing or co-playing mediation strengthens the relationship between educational media use and oral language skills. Unlike tests for hypothesis 1 and 2, leverage statistics for this variable indicated that one case had undue influence on the statistical results. Given that there was no clear reason to omit this case, the analysis for hypothesis 3 was
conducted twice – once with the leverage case included and once with the case omitted. Results for both are presented.
As shown in Table 5 (outlier excluded, see Appendix 5, pp. 52), the statistical model which included an interaction term between co-viewing/co-playing and educational media use did account for a significant amount of variance in oral language skills, F (6, 122) = 5.51, p < .001,
R² = .17, (17.4% of the variance in total). Relevant to hypothesis 3, the interaction term
representing the moderation effect of co-viewing/co-playing mediation on the relationship between educational media and oral language was statistically significant, b = .96, b* = 1.72, p = .001. When replicated with the outlier case included in the model, statistical interpretation was unaffected. The model in its entirety explained a significant variance, F (6, 123) = 4.51, p < .001,
R² = .14 (14% of the variance in total). The interaction term remained significant (b = .46, b* =
.84, p = .023) although it was a less robust predictor than in the model in which the outlier was excluded.
In order to interpret the significant moderation, the statistical interaction was plotted (see Figure 2, pp. 55). As demonstrated in Figure 2, the negative relationship between educational media use and oral language skills is much more pronounced among children whose parents employ little co-viewing/co-playing mediation strategies. In comparison, for children whose parents frequently engage in co-viewing/co-playing mediation strategies, the negative
relationship between educational media use and oral language use is much smaller. Increased levels of co-viewing/co-playing mediation, as with active mediation, seem to act as buffer in the relationship between educational media use on oral language skills. Hypothesis 3 presumed that educational media use would be positively associated with oral language outcomes, and that co-viewing/co-playing mediation would bolster this relationship. Instead, we see that educational media is negatively associated with oral language (test of hypothesis 1), but increased co-viewing/co-playing weakens this relationship. Thus, hypothesis 3 was partly supported.
Discussion
Using a Greek sample of parents with children three to five years old, the current study sought to test the hypothesis that children’s exposure to educational media content - televised and game content – would be positively associated with children’s oral language skills. Moreover, the study investigated whether active mediation and co-viewing/co-playing may influence this
relationship. Based on the propositions of the Differential Susceptibility to Media Effects Model (DSMM; Valkenburg & Peter, 2013) as well as evidence for the benefits of parental mediation (e.g. Nikken & Jansz, 2006; Livingstone & Helsper, 2008), it was expected that parent mediation, both active mediation and co-viewing/co-playing, would enhance the positive relationship
between educational media use and children’s oral language skills. Results, in part, supported study hypotheses.
Educational Media Use and Oral Language Skills
Findings from this study indicate that educational media and oral language use are negatively associated, indicating that increased educational media use is associated with poorer oral language skills among children three to five years old. More specifically, each extra hour spent on educational media content (television and video games) resulted in a decrease of -.433 (see Table 3, Appendix 5, pp. 51) on the oral language use scale (out of 32). This finding was
counter to hypothesis 1, which predicted the reverse direction of effect. There are several potential reasons that might explain these counter intuitive findings.
First, in this study, the average time spent on educational media ranged from 0 hours per day to 11.71 hours per day, with 28 out of 131 children spending less than 1.16 hours on
educational media. Contrast this with American data on preschoolers in which the average daily amount of educational media use is approximately 1.16 hours per day (Rideout, 2014). In other words, in this study, approximately 80% of Greek preschool-aged children reportedly spend more time with educational media than the average American child of this age, with 11.5% of Greek preschool-aged children spending more than 5 hours per day on educational media. This finding is quite surprising, particularly because Greece has far fewer educational media options for children than in the United States. Given the limited educational media options for children in Greece, it is possible that some parents - in this sample - consider certain media content as educational when in fact most researchers and practitioners would characterize the media content as primarily entertainment – not educational. For instance, a Greek parent in this study may have considered his/her child’s viewing of SpongeBob SquarePants as an educational children
television show, whereas most academics would argue the program is an entertainment based program. It is also possible that parents did not pay attention to the word “educational” in the survey questions. This would explain why some children reportedly spend so much time with educational media. Although an attempt was made to draw attention to the educational focus of the items by including exemplar media titles in the question, parents may have been quickly filling out this survey and simply skimmed the text – thus missing the emphasis on the
educational nature of the media. Or, as is often the pitfall with survey research, parents may have answered the survey quickly without thinking and answering honestly. Although the measure used to capture media exposure has been used successfully in other previous research (e.g.
Bleakley et al., 2013), this is the first time it has been use to measure exposure to a specific content type (as opposed to more general media use). It is reasonable to argue that parents did not pay attention to the content focus of the question, and thus estimates reflect more general media use as opposed to educational media use specifically.
Whether parents are lumping entertainment programming erroneously into their estimates of educational programming, or parents simply missed the focus on educational media in the survey questions, the result is the same: the indicator of educational media content in this study is more likely to reflect entertainment media exposure. If this is true, the negative relationship between “educational” media use and oral language skills is empirically consistent with other work looking at the influence of media content on child outcomes. Numerous researchers have shown that appropriate viewing of high quality content can improve children’s cognitive and behavioral development whereas entertainments is associated with more negative consequences (Christakis & Zimmerman, 2009). For example, Zimmerman & Christakis (2007) found that viewing violent or non-violent entertainment as a child predicted a significant and meaningful risk for the development of subsequent attentional problems, while viewing educational shows did not present any risk.
Furthermore, a wide variety of other studies have shown that educational media have positive effects on children’s oral language skills (Linebarger & Vaala, 2010; Dalton & Grisham, 2011; Mares & Pan, 2013). Based on the past literature and the findings presented here, it seems likely that the measure of educational media used in this study truly reflects entertainment media exposure.
The Role of Parental Mediation
Initially, it was expected that the presence of active mediation and/or co-viewing/co-playing could strengthen the positive relationship between educational media use and oral
language skills. Although there was no positive relationship between educational media use and oral language in this study, the results do show that active mediation and co-viewing/co-playing were - in part - working as expected. However, instead of bolstering the positive relationship, they were buffering the negative relationship. At a broad level, these findings lend support not only to the DSMM model – which argues that social context should be considered when evaluating the relationship between media use and media outcomes – but also parallel other research studies which have shown the benefits of mediation for young children (e.g. Van de Voort et al., 1992; Buijzen & Valkenburg, 2005). For example, research with active mediation revealed that kindergartners whose parents received training on verbal labeling and role playing increased the effectiveness of a prosocial television program on vocabulary learning and helping behaviors (Friedrich & Stein, 1975). Other research has shown that - in the context of educational video games - children who co-play with parents tend to experience more positive effects than their peers who played alone (Nikken & Jansz, 2006).
If we assume that, as addressed above, the educational media use variable used in this study was actually measuring more general (entertainment) media use, then the findings from this study have important implications for parents. Just as educational media has been linked with improved language outcomes (Linebarger & Vaala, 2010; Dalton & Grisham, 2011; Mares & Pan, 2013) - entertainment media has been linked with poorer language outcomes (Wright et. al, 2001). Parental mediation is expected to weaken the influences of negative media content and bolster the influences of positive media content. Although unplanned, it seems that this study has shown the potential of parental mediation to weaken the negative relationship between
entertainment media exposure and children’s oral language skills. Since these findings are theoretically consistent with how parental mediation is expected to interact with entertainment media content, it seems reasonable to argue that parental mediation should also enhance the
benefits of educational media content. It is worthwhile to replicate this research with a revised measure of educational media exposure (e.g., including an explanation of entertainment media so as to accentuate the difference between educational and non-educational media; using media diary methodology in which parents record media titles and researchers code the content) to confirm that parental mediation does, in fact, also bolster the positive potential of educational media content on children’s oral language skills. For now, however, the study highlights the importance of parental mediation in offsetting the negative consequences associated with media exposure. Interventions which help parents learn how to incorporate mediation in their daily life – for example, by helping the child understand what he/she is watching, explaining what is good or bad about a television show or a game, and/or watching or playing with the child - may play an important role in supporting children’s healthy development.
Limitations
Since this study is a cross-sectional survey, causality cannot be established (low internal validity). Longitudinal studies in which educational media use, parental mediation, and oral language use are investigated over time would provide valuable information to help address issues of causality. Given the cross-sectional nature of data, it is also possible that there are other important unmeasured third variables that may explain the relationships discovered in this study (e.g., socio-economic status). Future research should work to identify these potential third variables and formally include them in the study design in order to better disentangle the relationship between educational media use, parental mediation, and oral language use.
It is also important to note that there is no second person verification in this study as the data were based on the response of one parent. Future research which included multiple points of verification (e.g., multi-parent report) or uses multiple methodologies (e.g., survey and
desirable responses. Relatedly, the measurement of the independent variable in this study does not seem valid. Despite emphasis and examples, it seems that parents either did not pay attention to the word “education” – in the media exposure items - or did not understand what is fully meant. Future work should consider including a more detailed explanation of educational media which distinguishes educational media from entertainment media in order to highlight the differences.
Lastly, this study was based on a convenience sample of Greek-speaking parents. It is impossible to know whether the findings identified here reflect Greek children in general, or whether these findings may translate to other countries. Replicating this research with a representative sample of Greek children, as well as conducting cross-national studies, is a worthwhile next step.
Conclusion
This cross-sectional study was designed to understand how parental mediation may moderate the relationship between children’s educational media usage and oral language skills. Unexpectedly, results from this study revealed a negative relationship between educational media use and oral language use. Based on the extant literature and the findings here, there are concerns with the validity of the media measurement. Indeed, it is likely that parents reported on
entertainment media exposure as opposed to educational media exposure. Despite this methodological challenge, moderation results indicate that parental mediation is a critical contextual variable to evaluate when considering the relationship between media exposure and behavioral outcomes. This study, in particular, highlights how parent mediation may counteract the negative consequences associated with (entertainment) media exposure for young children. Interventions which help parents understand how to engage in effective parental mediation with
their young children can go a long way towards contributing to children’s healthy development, including the healthy development of children’s oral language skills.
References
Alper, M. (2013). The parent app: Understanding families in the digital age. Journal of Children
and Media, 7(4), 525-529.
Anand, S., & Krosnick, J. A. (2004). Demographics predictors of media use among infants, toddlers and preschoolers. American Behavioral Scientist, 48, 539-561.
Anderson, D. R., & Hanson, K. G. (2009). Children, media, and methodology. American
Behavioral Scientist, 52, 1204-1218.
Anderson, D. R., & Hanson, K. G. (2010). From blooming, buzzing confusion to media literacy: The early development of television viewing. Developmental Review, 30, 239-255. Anderson, D. R., Huston, A. C., Schmitt, K. L., Linebarger, D. L., Wright, J. C., & Larson, R.
(2001). Early childhood television viewing and adolescent behavior: The recontact study.
Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 66(1), 1-167.
Anderson, D. R., Huston, A. C., Schmitt, K. L., Linebarger, D. L., & Wright, J. C. (2001). Early childhood television viewing and adolescent behavior. Monographs of the Society for
Research in Child Development, 68(264), 1-143.
An, S., & Lee, D. (2010). An integrated model of parental mediation: The effect of family communication on children’s perception of television reality and negative viewing effects. Asian Journal of Communication, 20, 389-403.
Ball, S., & Bogatz, G. A. (1970). The first year of Sesame Street: An evaluation. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Belacchi, C., & Farina, E. (2012). Feeling and Thinking of Others: Affective and Cognitive Empathy and Emotion Comprehension in Prosocial/Hostile Preschoolers. Aggressive
Bleakley, A., Piotrowski, J. T., Hennessy, M., & Jordan, A. (2013). Predictors of parents’
intention to limit children’s television viewing. Journal of Public Health, 35(4), 525-532. Blumberg, F. C., Altschuler, E. A., Almonte, D. E., & Mileaf, M. I. (2013). The impact of
recreational video game play on children’s and adolescents’ cognition. In F. C. Blumberg & S. M. Fisch (Eds.), Digital Games: A Context for Cognitive Development. New
Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 139, 41–50.
Blumberg, F. C., & Fisch, S. M. (2013). Introduction: Digital games as a context for cognitive development, learning, and developmental research. In F. C. Blumberg & S. M. Fisch (Eds.), Digital Games: A Context for Cognitive Development. New Directions for Child
and Adolescent Development, 139, 1-9.
Brown, P. (2000). Repetition. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 9(1–2), 223-226. Bruner, J. S. (1983). Child’s talk: Learning to use language. New York: Norton.
Bruner, J. S. (1977). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Buijzen, M., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2005). Parental Mediation of Undesired Advertising Effects.
Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 49(2), 153-165.
Buijzen, M., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2003). The unintended effects of television advertising.
Communication Research, 30, 483-503.
Bukatko, D. (2008). Child and adolescent development: A chronological approach. Florence, KY: Cengage Learning.
Bushmann, B. J., Huesmann, L. R., & Whitetaker, J. L. (2009). Violent media effects. Media
processes and effects, 361-376.
Cambre, M. A., & Fernie, D. (1985). Formative evaluation of Season IV, 3-2-1 Contact:
on children's science comprehension and science interest. New York: Children's
Television Workshop.
Carey, S. (1978). The child as word learner. Linguistic theory and psychological reality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chiong, C., & Shuler, C. (2010). Learning: Is there an app for that? Investigations of young children’s usage and learning with mobile devices and apps. New York: The Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop.
Christakis, D. A., Gilkerson, J., Richards, J. A., Zimmerman, F. J., Garrison, M. M., Xu, D., Gray, S., & Yapanel, U. (2009). Audible television and decreased adult words, infant vocalizations, and conversational turns. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, 163, 554-558.
Christakis, D. A., Zimmerman, F. J., DiGuseppe, D. L., & McCarty, C. A. (2004). Early television exposure and subsequent attentional problems. Pediatrics, 113(4), 708-713. Christakis, D. A., & Zimmerman, F. J. (2009). Young children and media: Limitations of current
knowledge and future directions for research. American Behavioral Scientist, 52(8), 1177-1185.
Comstock, G., & Powers, J. (2012). Paths from television violence to aggression: Reinterpreting the evidence. The psychology of entertainment media, 2, 305-328.
Crawley, A. M., Anderson, D. R., Wilder, A., Williams, M., & Santomero, A. (1999). Effects of repeated exposure to a single episode of the television program Blue’s Clues on the viewing behaviors and comprehension of preschool children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 630-637.
Dalton, B., & Grisham, D. L. (2011). 10 ways to use technology to build vocabulary. The
Druin, A. (Ed.). (1999). The design of children’s technology. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufman. Fisch, S. M. (2000). A capacity model of children’s comprehension of educational content on
television. Media Psychology, 2, 63-91.
Fisch, S. M. (2004). Children’s learning from educational television: Sesame Street and beyond. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Fisch, S. (2007). Educational media in the 21st century. Journal of Children and Media, 1(1), 55-59.
Fisch, S., & Bernstein, L. (2001). Formative research revealed: Methodological and process issues in formative research. In S. Fisch & R. Truglio (Eds.), “G” is for growing (pp. 39-60). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrance ErlbaumFisch, S. M., Brown, S. K. M., & Cohen D. I. (2001). Young children’s comprehension of educational television: The role of visual information and intonation. Media Psychology, 3, 365-378.
Fisch, S. M., Lesh, R., Motoki, E., Crespo, S., & Melfi , V. (2011). Children’s mathematical reasoning in online games: Can data mining reveal strategic thinking? Child Development
Perspectives, 5(2), 88-92.
Fisch, S. M., Truglio, R. T., & Cole, C. F. (2009). The impact of Sesame Street on Preschool Children: A review and synthesis of 30 years’ research. Media Psychology, 1, 165-190. Fischer, D. A., Hill, D. L., Grube, J. W., Bersamin, M. M., Walker, S., & Gruber, E. L. (2009).
Televised sexual content and parental mediation: Influences on adolescent sexuality.
Media Psychology, 12. 121-147.
Friedrich, L. K., & Stein, A.H. (1975). Prosocial television and young children: The effects of verbal labeling and role playing on learning and behavior. Child Development, 46, 27-38. Gauvain, M. (2001). The social context of cognitive development. New York: Guilford.
Gentile, D. A., Nathanson, A. I., Rasmussen, E. E., Reimer, R. A., & Walsh, D. A. (2012). Do you see what I see? Parent and child reports of parental monitoring of media. Family
Relations, 61, 470-487.
Groebel, J. (1999). Media access and media use among 12-year-olds in the world. In C. von Fellitzen & U. Carlsson (Eds.), Children and media: Image, education, participation (pp. 61–68). Go¨ teborg, Sweden: UNESCO International Clearinghouse on Children and Violence on the Screen.
Healey, J. (1990). Endangered minds: Why our children don’t think. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Hendershot, H. (2011). Nickelodeon Nation: The history, politics, and economics of America’s only tv channel for kids.
Hisrich, K., & Blanchard, J. (2009). Digital media and emergent literacy. Computers in the
Schools, 26(4), 240-255.
Hoff, E. (2006). How social contexts support and shape language development. Developmental
Review, 26, 55-88.
Huston, A., & Wright, J. C. (1994). Educating children with television: The forms of the medium.
Media, children, and the family: Social scientific, psychodynamic, and clinical perspectives, 73-84.
Kirkorian, H., Wartella, E., & Anderson, D. (2008). Media and young children’s learning. Future
of Children, 18, 63–86.
Landry, S. H., Smith, K. E., & Swank, P. R. (2006). New directions in evaluating social problem solving in childhood: Early precursors and links to adolescent social competence. New
Larson, R. W. (2001). How U.S. children and adolescents spend time: What it does (and doesn’t) tell us about their development. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10, 160-164. Liebeskind, K. G., Piotrowski, J. T., Lapierre, M. A., Linebarger, D. L. (2013). The home literacy
environment: Exploring how media and parent-child interactions are associated with children’s language production. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 0(0), 1-28. Linebarger, D. L., Kosanic, A. Z., Greenwood, C. R., & Doku, N. S. (2004). Effects of viewing
the television program Between the Lions on the emergent literacy skills of young children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 297-308.
Linebarger, D. L., & Piotrowski, J. T. (2009). TV as storyteller: How exposure to television narratives impacts at-risk preschoolers’ story knowledge and narrative skills. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 27(1), 47-69.
Linebarger, D. L., Piotrowski, J. T., & Greenwood, C. R. (2009). On-screen print: The role of captions as a supplemental literacy tool. Journal of Research in Reading, 33(2), 148-167. Linebarger, D. L., & Vaala, S. E. (2008). Babies and TV: Relations between viewing and
language development. Paper presented at the 2nd International Conference on Early Childhood Education, Arnhem, Netherlands.
Linebarger, D. L., & Vaala, S. E. (2010). Screen media and language development in infants and toddlers: An ecological perspective. Developmental Review, 30, 176-202.
Linebarger, D. L., & Walker, D. (2005). Infants’ and toddlers’ television viewing and language outcomes. American Behavioral Scientist, 48(5), 624-645.
Livingstone, S. (2009). On the mediation of everything: ICA presidential address 2008. Journal
of Communication, 59, 1-18.
Livingstone, S. (2005). Strategies of parent regulation in the media-rich home. Computers in
Livingstone, S., & Helsper, E. (2008). Parental mediation and children’s Internet use. Journal of
Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 52(4), 581-599.
Mares, M. L., & Pan, Z. (2013). Effects of Sesame Street: A meta-analysis of children’s learning in 15 countries. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 34, 140-151.
Nathanson, A. I. (2001). Parent and child perspectives on the presence and meaning of parental television mediation. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 45, 201-220.
Nathanson, A. I., & Cantor, J. (2000). Reducing the aggression-promoting effect of violent cartoons by increasing children’s fictional involvement with the victim: A study of active mediation. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 44, 125-142.
Nikken, P., & Jansz, J. (2006). Parental mediation of children’s videogame playing: A
comparison of the reports by parents and children. Learning, Media and Technology, 31, 181-202.
Piaget, J. (1970). Handbook of child psychology, 1. New York: Wiley, 1983.
Piotrowski, J. T. (2014). The relationship between narrative processing demands and young American children’s comprehension of educational television. Journal of Children and
Media, 1-19.
Reiser, R. A., Tessmer, M. A., & Phelps, P. C. (1984). Adult–child interaction in children's learning from Sesame Street. Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 32, 217-223.
Rideout, V. (2014). Learning at home: Families’ educational media use in America. The Joan
Ganz Cooney Center.
Rideout, V. (2011). Zero to eight: Children’s media use in America. Common Sense Media. Rideout, V., Foehr, U., & Roberts, D. (2010). Generation M2: Media in the lives of 8- to
Rideout,V. J., Vandewater, E. A., & Wartella, E. A. (2003). Zero to six: Electronic media in the
lives of infants, toddler, and preschoolers. Menlo Park, CA: Kaiser Family Foundation.
Salomon, G. (1977). Effects of encouraging Israeli mothers to co-observe Sesame Street with their five-year-olds. Child Development, 48, 1146-1151.
Schmidt, M. E., & Anderson, D. R. (2007). The impact of television on cognitive development and educational achievement. In N. Pecora, J. P. Murray, & E. E. Wartella (Eds.), Children and Television (pp.65-85). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Singhal, A., & Rogers, E. M. (1999). Entertainment-education: A communication strategy for social change. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Stattin, H., & Kerr, M. (2000). Parental monitoring: A reinterpretation. Child Development, 71(4), 1072-1085.
Strasburger, V. C., Jordan, A. B., & Donnerstein, E. (2010). Health effects of media on children and adolescents. Pediatrics, 125(4), 756-767.
Strasburger, V. C., Wilson, B. J., & Jordan, A. B. (2013). Children, adolescents, and the media (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Valkenburg, P. M., Krcmar, M., Peeters, A., & Marseille, N. (1999). Developing a scale to assess three styles of television mediation: ‘‘instructive mediation,’’ ‘‘restrictive mediation,’’ and ‘‘social coviewing’’. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 43, 52-66. Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2013). Five challenges for the future of media-effects research.
International Journal of Communication, 7, 197-215.
Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2013). The differential susceptibility to media effects models.
Valkenburg, P. M., Piotrowski, J. T., Hermanns, J., & de Leeuw, R. (2013). Developing and validating the perceived parental mediation scale: A self-determined perspective. Human
Communication Research, 39, 445-469.
Van den Bulck, J., & Van den Bergh, B. (2000). The influence of perceived parental guidance patterns on children’s media use: Gender differences and media displacement. Journal of
Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 36, 61-74.
Van de Voort, T. H. A, Nikken, P., & Van Lil, J. E. (1992). Determinants of parental guidance of children’s television viewing: A Dutch replication study. Journal of Broadcasting &
Electronic Media, 61, 61-74.
Vandewater, E. A., Rideout, V. J., Wartella, E. A., et al. (2007) Digital childhood: Electronic media and technology use among infants, toddlers, and preschoolers. Pediatrics119(5): e1006-e1015.
Ward, L. M., & Friedman, K. (2006). Using TV as a guide: Associations between television viewing and adolescents’ sexual attitudes and behavior. Journal of Research on
Adolescence, 16, 133-156.
Wright, P. J. (2011). Mass media effects on youth sexual behavior: Assessing the claim for causality. Communication Yearbook, 35, 343-386.
Wright, J. C., Huston, A. C., Murphy, K. C., St. Peters, M., Pinon, M., Scantlin, R., et al. (2001). The relations of early television viewing to school readiness and vocabulary of children from low income families: The early window project. Child Development, 72, 1347-1366. Young, M. F., Slota, S., Cutter, A. B., Jalette, G., Mullin, G., Lai, B., & Yukhymenko, M. (2012).
Our princess is in another castle: A review of trends in serious gaming for education.
Zimmerman, J. F., & Christakis, D. A. (2007). Associations between content types of early media exposure and subsequent attentional problems. Pediatrics, 120(5), 986-992.
Appendices
Appendix 1: Parent Mediation Measure
We would like to know how you (parents) approach your child’s media use, for example, when he/she watches television or movies, or play games. Parents vary in how they approach media in the household. In the questions below, we use the word ‘‘you’’, referring to a parent (mother/father).
Television
1. When your child is watching television, how often do you …
Never Rarely Sometimes Often Not Applicable 1.1. … try to help your child understand
what he/she sees on television?
1.2. … watch together because you both like
a program?
1.3. … point out why some things actors do,
are good?
1.4.… watch together because of a common
interest in a program?
1.5.… point out why things actors do, are
bad?
1.6. … watch together for the fun?
1.7.… explain motives of television
characters?
1.8.… watch your favorite program together
1.9. … explain what something on television
really means?
1.10. … laugh with your child about the
