The upside of baby TV
Can you imagine someone questioning your parenting skills if they saw you and your baby smiling, laughing, talking, singing or playing a simple game… and your playful interactions were as a result of something you were watching on TV?
Recent headlines on the topic of ‘baby TV’, most of which damned Baby Einstein specifically and, by association, all baby media – and, by further association, all parents who ever used or even thought of using a baby video with their child, would lead you to believe that all screen time is harmful or simply a waste of time. But many academic and child development experts argue that it’s just not that simple. New research suggests that appropriately designed content can result in learning as well as in increases in real world interactions. It also challenges the assumption that if we just turned off the TV all would be right in the world of parenting and child growth and development.
The anti-TV position negates its value as a tool for promoting learning and interaction between parents and their children. If your baby watches programs that reflect his world and the situations he observes in it, he can potentially learn from it
Who or what are we supposed to believe?
In 1999, the American Academy of Pediatricians (AAP) recommended no TV for under-2s, although this recommendation wasn’t based on any negative evidence. Many parents were unaware of the AAP’s position on TV, and most simply continued to use their own judgment when it came to screen-time and their babies. Recently, however, two reports coming from the University of Washington have really stirred things up.
One of these studies described the amount of time parents reported that their young children watched TV or videos – according to its findings, by 3 months of age around 40% of children regularly watched television, DVDs, or videos and by 2, this figure rose to 90%. The average viewing time per day rose from an hour per day for under-1s to more than one and a half hours per day by 2 years. Parents reported that they watched with their children more than half of the time, and gave education, entertainment and babysitting as major reasons for media exposure in their under-2s.
The second study suggested that 8-16 month olds who watched videos might know six to eight fewer words than those who watched no videos. As I read the coverage of this research, I had a flashback to something one of my university professors said over 30 years ago: “Statistics don’t lie… but beware the statistician.”
The academic community has already begun to question the validity of this study because children develop at different rates, the data was based on verbal reports from parents and not observations of babies and conclusions about all baby videos were drawn when none were actually tested. While it’s true that lots of babies are watching lots of TV, it’s also true that, for the most part, parents are sharing the experience.
Research, reason and responsibility
The children’s programming community, the academic community, and moms and dads are ready to talk about what we really know about how and whether baby videos can be a practical tool in a parent’s arsenal of early learning aids. We live in the 21st century. It’s a media-centric world and we know in many cases that media can inform, entertain, teach (think PBS, Discovery, The History Channel, etc) and even change minds and behaviors. It’s time for the conversation.
Dr. Kathy Hirsch-Pasek, author of Einstein Never Used Flashcards, says “After decades of research, scientists and child development experts have come to a clear conclusion: play is the best way for children to learn.” Yet Hirsh-Pasek is also an academic advisor for eebee’s adventures. How can that be? Hirsh-Pasek says, “eebee’s adventures sparkle with a creativity that shows how the magic of everyday moments can become extraordinary learning opportunities.”
Hirsh-Pasek believes that video content that can “come off the screen and onto the living room floor” might have the potential to prompt real interactions between a parent and child and, therefore, could make a difference for both parent and baby. She acknowledges that more research needs to be done on the topic and adds, “Exaggerated science has convinced many parents that we have to be shoving facts into our children’s heads and that we have to somehow be memorizing numbers even in infancy.” She cautions against any infant learning material that is focused on a narrow range of “right answers” and broad claims of academic achievement.
Content matters
Dr. Deborah Linebarger, a children’s media research scholar at the University of Pennsylvania, echoes Hirsh-Pasek’s point of view and has been at the forefront of conducting research that looks at what’s actually on the screen. “If what’s on the screen reflects a baby’s world and the types of situations a child might naturally be observing, then there’s the likelihood that very young children can understand it and potentially learn from it,” she says. “Much of the AAP’s concern was initially voiced because the research on the effect of screen time on babies was very limited. We know more now, and the trend is clear – what babies are actually watching can make a difference.”
Linebarger also points out that there’s a difference between ‘foreground TV’ – TV intended for a child to watch – and ‘background TV’, which is a constant backdrop to a baby’s other activities. “The always-on, extraneous voices and constant droning of background TV can interfere with early language learning,” she cautions.
One of the more interesting facts in the current debate over ‘baby TV’ (foreground TV) is that all programming created for the under-2s is being lumped together. In some ways that’s like saying all books, all music, all toys are the same. One of Linebarger’s studies confirms that the opposite is true. She found that a very young child’s expressive language skills can be affected by how language is used in the TV shows they watch – shows with simple narratives had a positive effect on language skills and others with either complex scripts or minimal language had less than optimal effects. Unlike the recent vocabulary study from the University of Washington, Linebarger actually observed real children.
While it’s clear that a lot more research that looks into specific features of programming needs to be conducted, Linebarger cites some interesting – and comforting – studies that report a positive relationship between early TV viewing and later spatial skills; a positive effect that resulted from parents and children watching certain ‘baby’ programs together, prompting more parent/child interactivity even after the program was turned off; and no relationship between the amount of time under-5s watched TV and the amount of time they spent in active play or being read to. This same study also reported that with an hour a day of TV, for children between the ages of 0-2, there was a parent-reported reduction in time involved in ‘creative pastimes’, such as playing with toys and games or imaginative play.
These findings seem to suggest that there just might be a reasoned path to follow for those who are comfortable with the research-supported ideas that a video can provoke new and interesting parent-child interactions and the right content can have a positive effect on certain skills. Baby TV isn’t all bad – it’s down to what, how and how often it’s used.