Child Development, September/October 2010, Volume 81, Number 5, Pages 15821597

Structure and Strategies in Childrens Educational Television: The Roles of Program Type and Learning Strategies in Childrens Learning
Deborah L. Linebarger and Jessica Taylor Piotrowski
University of Pennsylvania

Educational TV has been consistently linked to childrens learning. In this research, educational TV characteristics were identied, coded, and tested for their inuence on childrens program-specic comprehension and vocabulary outcomes. Study 1 details a content analysis of TV features including a programs macrostructure (i.e., narrative or expository) and learning strategies embedded in the macrostructure that support learning in print-based contexts. In Study 2, regression analyses were used to predict outcomes involving 71 second and third graders (average age = 7.63 years). Strategies were categorized as organizing, rehearsing, elaborating, or affective in function. Outcomes were uniformly higher for narrative macrostructures. Strategies used in narratives predicted relatively homogenous relations across outcomes, whereas strategies in expositories predicted quite heterogeneous relations across outcomes.

Since the introduction of Sesame Street in 1969, producers, educators, and researchers have worked together and in parallel to create and evaluate the impacts of educational TV. When programs are created using entertaining formats guided by developmental theory, researchers document increases on various outcomes including school readiness (e.g., Wright et al., 2001), problem solving (e.g., Crawley, Anderson, Wilder, Williams, & Santomero, 1999), and literacy (e.g., Linebarger, Kosanic, Greenwood, & Doku, 2004). There is growing evidence that embedding content with certain learning strategies supports childrens processing of that content. Showing a word that breaks into individual sounds and then reassembles into the word helps early readers acquire phonemic awareness (e.g., mm, aa, pp when blended together forms map; Linebarger et al., 2004; Uchikoshi, 2005) while pairing visual
This project was supported by two U.S. Department of Education (DOE) grants (H029D60040; H327A990082) and a third U.S. DOE cooperative agreement (U295A050003). Please note, these contents do not necessarily represent the policy of the U.S. DOE and you should not assume endorsement by the federal government. Portions of the research were presented at the annual meeting of the Ofce of Special Education Projects, U.S. DOE, Washington, DC, June 2002, and at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Tampa, FL, April 2003. Special thanks to the staff and participants involved in this project including Dr. John C. Wright of the University of Texas at Austin who was a coinvestigator on this project until his death in 2001. We are indebted to his many contributions. His guidance and mentoring will be missed by all those who knew him or beneted from his scholarly brilliance. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Deborah L. Linebarger, Annenberg School for Communication, University of Pennsylvania, 3620 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104. Electronic mail may be sent to dlinebarger@asc. upenn.edu.

referents with verbal labels or using intonational cues to emphasize content helped children learn more (Fisch, 2004). Learning involves a relatively permanent change in behavior or knowledge. The most straightforward theories of learning from TV are content based and involve the acquisition, encoding, storage, and retrieval of information. These include behavior change (e.g., social cognitive theory; Bandura, 2001) and information-processing theories (capacity model; Fisch, 2004) that, in their broadest forms, predict that knowledge results from cognitively processing televised content. When children can process and comprehend visual and verbal TV symbols, they will be able to organize, store, and relate this information to prior knowledge. Acquired knowledge and behavior are then used to inuence a childs actions. Focusing attention on particular televised stimuli is dependent on an interaction among interest, ability, and characteristics inherent in stimuli. Becoming sufciently aroused and oriented to a stimulus while blocking out other, irrelevant stimuli (Herrman, Yoder, Gruneberg, & Payne, 2006) is necessary for learning. Children direct maximal attention to stimuli perceived to be moderately novel and of intermediate complexity (Rice, Huston, & Wright, 1982; Roller, 1990). Declining attention occurs when the material is overly familiar and easy to process, or, conversely, too novel and complex. One way to

2010 The Authors Child Development 2010 Society for Research in Child Development, Inc. All rights reserved. 0009-3920/2010/8105-0019

Television Features and Literacy

1583

boost attention and support content retention is to insert learning strategies that support informationprocessing efforts. There is considerable variability in the degree of instructional support provided by programs, ranging from those that rely heavily on viewers to generate and apply their own strategies to those that use strategies to explicitly structure viewers processing in an effort to stimulate learning (Smith & Ragan, 2005). Recently, educational media began creating content to support the development of early literacy skills. The purpose of this study was to evaluate a set of learning strategies hypothesized to support childrens literacy abilities in both narrative and expository programs. To operationalize and evaluate these learning strategies, two studies were conducted. In Study 1, various literacy-promoting learning strategies were culled from print and other literacy-related research and then coded for their presence in childrens educational TV. All programs used one of two program types or macrostructures: narrative or expository. In Study 2, learning strategies and macrostructures were used to predict program-specic comprehension and vocabulary.

Study 1 A number of learning strategies that support printbased literacy were identied from several sources (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000; Snow, Burns, & Grifn, 1998). Because research on the effects of TV on young children has established the crucial role that content plays, because programs with well-designed curricula produce stronger academic and social effects (e.g., Anderson, Huston, Schmitt, Linebarger, & Wright, 2001), and because strategies typically work across different media, it was appropriate to identify learning strategies used in other contexts that might also be found in educational TV. Via an iterative process of review and coding, three key sets of strategies were identied: affective strategies (i.e., literacy environment), comprehension strategies, and vocabulary strategies. Each is reviewed next. Literacy Environment Programs may explicitly or implicitly create supportive literacy environments by depicting characters who use print or make positive comments about literacy as well as by displaying print onscreen. Making a decision to invest attention and

cognitive resources to televised content is dependent on a childs personal interest, the stimuli characteristics, and the interaction between the two. Personal interest develops when the childs perception of the rewards for engaging in the modeled set of behaviors is strong (Schiefele, 1998). According to Banduras (2001) social cognitive theory, children observe and imitate persons found in their everyday worlds, including characters on TV, particularly when those characters are interesting and personally relevant. Stimuli characteristics also generate interest and attention when they help children believe they could engage in and successfully replicate onscreen behavior or that literacy is valued and respected. When questioned about their competence in learning from TV and print, the competence scores of poor at-risk second graders were rated more highly for learning from TV (Linebarger, 2001). Motivation levels increased when instruction was based on popular TV programs (Szabo & Lamielle-Landy, 1981). Greater motivation results in deeper processing of content (Renninger, 1992) that, for TV, was found to transfer to higher fourth-grade reading achievement (Szabo & Lamielle-Landy, 1981). Two longitudinal studies involving preschoolers also provide support: Watching educational TV as a preschooler predicted better school readiness skills at school entry (Wright et al., 2001) and more leisure book reading, greater academic self-concept, and higher English grade point averages when a teen (Anderson et al., 2001). Onscreen print should contribute to literacy skills when that print is a natural part of the plot (e.g., characters write notes or grocery lists; Fisch, 2004; Linebarger et al., 2004). Viewers are given opportunities to practice reading onscreen print with visual (e.g., print grows and shrinks) and verbal supports (e.g., intonation cues). Receiving stimuli in multiple modalities strengthens the connections among these stimuli, resulting in efcient encoding and later retrieval (Sadoski & Paivio, 2001). Incorporating print as an extension of character or program events links it to the main theme, making it more meaningful and easier to remember (Fisch, 2004). Comprehension Strategies Constructing meaning from content requires prior knowledge about that content and explicit links between that knowledge and new content. Strategies that support comprehension include activation of prior knowledge (via advance organizers or connections to real life) and repetition

1584

Linebarger and Piotrowski

and review of the content after it has been presented (Michel & Roebers, 2008). Comprehension is also supported when new information is limited (Reinking & Schreiner, 1985) or when readers are directed to make predictions about upcoming content (Taylor, Peterson, Pearson, & Rodriguez, 2002). Using comprehension strategies should help children remember more of an episode as well as learn the underlying educational content in that episode. Vocabulary Strategies Children are able to learn specic words from TV as well as transfer that knowledge to more generalized vocabulary gains (Rice & Woodsmall, 1988; Wright et al., 2001); however, these associations hold only for educational TV (e.g., Patterson, 2002). Naigles and Mayeux (2001) concluded that when designed appropriately using strategies that support word learning in print-based contexts, educational TV helps vocabulary acquisition. TV affords a unique opportunity to present words and concepts using a combination of images, verbal description, and sound effects. When supporting text is simple, more challenging content can be inserted. The simple text requires little processing and, as such, directs attention to the central content and away from incidental content. The rate of aural narration also affects what and how much is comprehended. Pairing static text with narration (e.g., books on tape) increased reading vocabulary and denition knowledge when narration rates were similar to or just above the childs reading rate (McMahon, 1983). Televised and audio-taped book narration rates average 141 words per minute (wpm), childrens educational TV averages 124 wpm, and cartoons average 125 wpm (Jensema, McCann, & Ramsey, 1996). Conversation rates are between 150 and 175 wpm (Taylor, 1964). While rst to third graders are able to comprehend content at these speeds, it begins to decline as speeds reach and surpass 175 wpm (Barron, 2004). Lower rates are required when children have reading difculties or when content is especially complex (e.g., science content is more challenging than prosocially themed stories at faster narration rates; Barron, 2004). While these studies do not exactly mirror the process of viewing and comprehending TV, recent research nds that similar skills underlie processing of different media. Comprehension of televised stories at age 6 predicted reading comprehension at age 8 (Kendeou et al., 2005).

Program Type: Narrative Versus Expository Macrostructures In addition to learning strategies, the broader macrostructure used to deliver content affects learning. While different narrative macrostructures exist (e.g., traditional story book, story within a story; Linebarger & Piotrowski, 2009), the foundational elements used in most narratives are similar (e.g., setting, character, goals, resolution). In contrast, expository macrostructures present information in varied ways depending on the purpose of the information (e.g., compare and contrast, listing and sequencing, cause and effect; Duke & Kays, 1998). Embedded within both macrostructures are learning strategies that support processing by reducing cognitive load and making content accessible and salient. It is unclear whether these strategies function similarly across macrostructures or whether their inuence is dependent on, shaped by, or interacting with the macrostructure. It is likely that these strategies function in both ways. The skills used to interpret content and those that develop from repeated exposure to content differ by the macrostructure used. Reading expository books contributes to conceptual knowledge and vocabulary development, stronger comparative and contrastive abilities, and the use of classicatory language structures (Duke & Kays, 1998). In contrast, exposure to narrative stories supports language and literacy skills, story knowledge, and later school success (e.g., Nord, Lennon, Liu, & Chandler, 1999; Scarborough & Dobrich, 1994). Television programs also use these two macrostructures although little research has specically focused on the effects of these macrostructures. Narratives contribute to language and literacy skill acquisition (Kendeou et al., 2005; Linebarger & Piotrowski, 2009; Linebarger & Walker, 2005). Watching narratives over an extended period helped preschoolers augment story knowledge and print-based narrative skills compared with children who viewed an expository or no program (Linebarger & Piotrowski, 2009). Story knowledge and narrative abilities develop from the ability to identify the meaning of a particular story. When a program uses a narrative macrostructure, children should be better able to recognize story parts (e.g., goals, characters, setting) and, more important, the deeper educational content (Fisch, 2004). The utility of expositories, comparisons between these programs and narratives, and comparisons between these programs and comparable expository printed texts, have not been directly evaluated.

Television Features and Literacy

1585

There is, however, sufcient evidence that children learn content from expositories and are able to transfer that content to more generalized knowledge gains (e.g., Fisch, 2004). Questions remain about what content is best learned through which macrostructure and whether particular learning strategies support or interfere with learning that content.

Method Sample Six 30-min programs previously or currently airing on the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) channel were selected for inclusion in this study. Curriculum documents and promotional materials developed by each of the programs indicated that these programs were designed for children in the target age group (i.e., 7- to 9-year-olds). PBS programs were selected because (a) PBS is widely available and free, (b) not all children in the study had access to cable (e.g., for programs on Nickelodeon or Disney), and (c) there were no commercials on PBS. In addition to airing on PBS and targeting second- and third-grade children, an equal number of narrative and expository macrostructures were included. Narratives used a set of story events containing dialogue, characters, setting, goals, and outcomes to deliver prosocial or academic content. Expositories used multiple vignettes and program hosts to educate, inform, or describe a particular topic. As the goal of this research was to make more general statements about macrostructures and embedded learning strategies (vs. claims about particular programs), selecting six different programs equally representing both macrostructures provided stronger tests of our hypotheses. Arthur & Friends (ART), Magic School Bus (MSB), and Wishbone (WB) were selected as narrative exemplars. Reading Rainbow (RR), Zoom (ZM), and Kratts Creatures (KC) were selected as expository exemplars. Coding Framework Literacy environment. To evaluate whether the literacy environment depicted in an episode was conducive to learning, the following were coded: characters use of print (i.e., reading books, writing, using the computer; Print Use), characters positive statements about print (i.e., frequency; Positive Statements), and onscreen print (i.e., frequency that print onscreen lasted at least one second; Onscreen Print). Comprehension strategies. Four comprehension strategies were coded. An episodes number of

main segments was counted (i.e., segments introducing new information related to an overall theme; Main Segments). Pre- and postmain segments were coded as Prior Knowledge or Summary, respectively. Prior Knowledge was the duration in seconds that characters or a narrator spent directing viewers to access their own background knowledge. Summary was the duration in seconds when the information in a Main Segment was repeated exactly or paraphrased after its initial presentation. Characters or narrators use of questions and predictions related to upcoming content were scored as Questions Predictions (i.e., frequency). Vocabulary strategies. A variety of components related to vocabulary were coded including number of times target words repeated (i.e., Target Words), number of words per sentence (i.e., Sentence Length), the percentage of Dolch words used (i.e., Dolch Words; Dolch words represent 220 highfrequency words that comprise 50%70% of kindergarten through third-grade primers; May, 1998), and the pace or rate of the aural narration (i.e., Narration Rate). Reliability Krippendorffs alpha (Hayes & Krippendorff, 2007) was calculated to examine intercoder reliability for frequency counts and durations. Frequency counts were tallied for Print Use, Positive Statements, Onscreen Print, and Questions Predictions, while durations were computed for Prior Knowledge and Summary. All codes demonstrated strong intercoder reliability: Print Use = .99, Positive Statements = .96, Onscreen Print = .99, Prior Knowledge = .97, Summary = .98, and Questions Predictions = .99. The number of Main Segments was identied together with each coder prior to coding the other variables. Vocabulary codes were calculated using Concordance software (Watt, 2007). After entering episode scripts, the software counted the total number and frequency of all words (including Target Words and Dolch Words) and the average words per sentence (i.e., Sentence Length). Narration Rate was calculated by dividing the total words spoken by the episode air-time. Table 1 provides descriptive data, and Table 2 provides correlations among all variables. Analytical Approach To facilitate comparisons across codes and programs and balance the contribution of each strategy

1586

Linebarger and Piotrowski

Table 1 Means and Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) Results by Program (P) and Macrostructure (MS) Program means Narrative Category codes ART MSB WB RR Expository ZM KC ANOVA, F (partial g2) P 3.67 (0.753) LE 0 (0) P LE 1.16 (0.492)

Literacy environment (LE) by program (P) PU 2.0 7.5 22.0 1.5 PS 4.5 0.5 5.0 1.5 OP 18.0 25.5 21.0 17.5 Literacy environment (LE) by macrostructure (MS) PU 12.67 14.00 PS 2.17 2.67 OP 20.33 29.33 Comprehension strategies (CS) by program (P) MS 5.0 8.0 5.5 6.0 PK 14.0 399 194.0 409.5 SM 111.5 417.5 156.5 1143.0 QP 66.5 85.5 22.0 63.5 Comprehension strategies (CS) by macrostructure (MS) MS 6.33 8.00 PK 316.17 225.50 SM 557.33 461.83 QP 71.83 33.83 Vocabulary strategies (VS) by program (P) TW 13.0 33.0 25.0 23.5 NR 10.7 9.6 84.6 99.1 SL 5.5 4.9 9.2 6.1 %D 47.2 43.3 5.5 47.5 Vocabulary strategies (VS) by macrostructure (MS) TW 23.17 26.83 NR 96.82 102.39 SL 5.50 8.45 %D 46.04 50.48

6.0 1.5 54.5

14.0 1.5 12.5

0.95

MS (0.087)

LE 0 (0)

MS LE 0.09 (0.019)

9.0 129.5 98.0 46.5

9.5 353.0 1131.0 33.0

P 14.52** (0.924)

CS 0 (0)

P CS 1.68 (0.584)

1.45

MS (0.126)

CS 0 (0)

MS CS 9.03** (0.772)

28.5 113.4 7.3 54.8

27.0 109.1 8.9 46.7

P 3.64 (0.752)

VS 0 (0)

P VS 6.47*** (0.844)

MS 15.16** (0.602)

VS 0 (0)

MS VS 1.16 (0.303)

Note. Code range: PU = Print Use (232 times); PS = Positive Statements (06 statements); OP = Onscreen Print (571 instances); MS = Main Segments (512 segments); PK = Prior Knowledge (100627 s); SM = Summary (791273 s); QP = Questions and Predictions (996 times); TW = Target Words (1136 repetitions); NR = Narration Rate (81.9119.0 words spoken per minute); SL = Sentence Length (4.59.8 words per sentence); %D = Percent Dolch Words (42.4%54.0%). p < .10. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

to the overall models, all coded variables were z-score transformed. Six (programs) by N (category of coded variables) repeated measures analyses of variance (ANOVAs) with repeated measures on the categories (e.g., Literacy Environment, N = 3: Print Use, Positive Statements, Onscreen Print) were computed to examine code-related program differences. To evaluate whether macrostructures differentiated strategy use, ANOVAs comparing each type were computed. In these analyses, z scores were used to generate the F tests reported in Table 1. To ease interpretation, the original means are presented in Table 1. Because the sample size was low (i.e., N = 6) and to estimate practical signicance, effect sizes are also reported in Table 1.

All reported results are signicant at alpha level p < .05 or better.

Results Variability in Strategies Across Programs Literacy environment. To test for differences in the depiction of the literacy environment across programs, a 6 3 (Programs Literacy Environment) repeated measures ANOVA with repeated measures on the last factor was conducted. The literacy environment was marginally variable across programs (p < .10). RR contained the densest literacy environment followed by ART, ZM, KC, WB, and MSB.

Television Features and Literacy

Table 2 Correlations Among Literacy Environment, Comprehension Strategies, and Vocabulary Strategies Variables 1. Print use 2. Positive statements 3. Onscreen print 4. Main segments 5. Prior knowledge 6. Summary 7. Questions predictions 8. Target words 9. Narration rate 10. Sentence length 11. Dolch words 1 .40*** ).12*** ).39*** ).24*** ).09* ).21*** ).24*** ).40*** .12** ).02 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1587

11

).40*** ).58*** ).23*** ).43*** ).42*** ).68*** ).31*** .31*** .25***

.33*** ).43*** ).41*** .09* .47*** .36*** ).10** .57***

).16*** .16*** .01 .64*** .67*** .26*** .19***

.55*** .12*** .00 ).28*** ).18*** ).41***

).06 .22*** .17*** .09** ).42***

.03 ).04 ).92*** ).45***

.13*** .11** ).06

.17*** .40***

.47***

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Comprehension strategies. To evaluate whether comprehension strategies differed across programs, a 6 4 (Programs Comprehension Strategies) repeated measures ANOVA with repeated measures on the last factor was computed. Comprehension strategies signicantly varied across programs while the distribution and quantity of each was similar within programs. MSB contained the most comprehension strategies followed by WB, KC, ZM, ART, and RR. Vocabulary strategies. To examine variation in the use of vocabulary strategies, a 6 4 (Programs Vocabulary Strategies) repeated measures ANOVA with repeated measures on the last factor was computed. Vocabulary strategies varied marginally across programs. ZM contained the most, followed by KC, RR, WB, MSB, and ART. The distribution of strategies within programs also differed. The density of all four strategies was higher than average in ZM and lower than average in WB. Both KC and RR contained more strategies than average across three of the four codes (i.e., KC contained a lower than average percentage of Dolch Words while RR contained a slower than average Narration Rate). The reverse was true for ART and MSB; both contained fewer than average strategies for three of the four codes. ARTs Narration Rate was faster than average while MSB repeated Target Words more often than average. Macrostructure Differences Literacy environment. To test if the literacy environment varied by macrostructure, a 2 3 (Macrostructure Literacy Environment) repeated measures ANOVA with repeated measures on the

last factor was computed. The literacy environment did not vary by macrostructure. Comprehension strategies. The macrostructure was hypothesized to differentiate comprehension strategies such that narratives would use more effective comprehension strategies. This hypothesis was tested by computing a 2 4 (Macrostructure Comprehension Strategies) repeated measures ANOVA with repeated measures on the last factor. This hypothesis was supported. The signicant two-way (Macrostructure Comprehension Strategies) interaction indicated that narratives used more supportive comprehension strategies and fewer comprehension obstacles compared with expositories (i.e., longer Prior Knowledge and Summary segments, more Questions Predictions, fewer Main Segments than expositories). Vocabulary strategies. Macrostructure was hypothesized to differentiate the use of vocabulary strategies such that expositories would use more effective vocabulary strategies. To test this hypothesis, a 2 4 (Macrostructure Vocabulary Strategies) repeated measures ANOVA with repeated measures on the last factor was computed. This hypothesis received partial support. The signicant two-way (Macrostructure Vocabulary Strategies) interaction indicated that expositories contained more of all strategies, supportive (i.e., more repetitions of Target Words, greater percentage of Dolch Words) and unsupportive (i.e., longer Sentence Length, faster Narration Rates) when compared with narratives. Discussion Study 1 conrmed modest to high levels of variability in learning strategies across and within

1588

Linebarger and Piotrowski

programs. Macrostructures provided a framework to which microlevel learning strategies were afxed. Signicant variability by macrostructure for comprehension and vocabulary strategies was found while the literacy environment was depicted similarly for both. Narratives contained fewer main segments, easier program text, and more time spent activating prior knowledge and summarizing program content. These strategies should reduce the cognitive resources needed to make sense of content by explicitly instructing viewers to access relevant background knowledge and by offering time to reect on new content during summaries. Children, by virtue of their considerable narrative experience (e.g., 92% of the top 25 childrens programs in 2003 used narratives, Nielsen Media Research, 2003; 90% of books in kindergarten through third grade use narrative formats, Stein & Trabasso, 1982), should be able to devote fewer resources to processing narrative macrostructures, freeing up cognitive capacity to generate inferences. Conversely, expositories are organized to transmit information and, as a consequence, contained more unique content ideas and greater structural complexity than narratives. As a result, expositories tend to demand greater organizational and processing skills than is typically required for narratives (Best, Floyd, & McNamara, 2008). Both supportive and unsupportive vocabulary learning strategies were highest in expositories while comprehension strategies were used less frequently than narratives. It is unclear whether the supportive vocabulary strategies (i.e., target words, Dolch words) are more powerful than the unsupportive strategies (i.e., longer sentences, faster narration rates), leading to higher literacy scores or whether vocabulary complexity nullies the supportive vocabulary strategies, leading to lower literacy scores. In contrast, the lack of explicit comprehension supports makes it likely that viewers will encounter difculty linking their own knowledge (which, for at-risk children, is often limited) to the new information, resulting in diminished program comprehension.

Understanding program content results from a childs ability to recognize the macrostructure used to present that content as well as the microlevel strategies that dene the organization of and elements within a particular media text. The microlevel strategies refer to how ideas are arranged and connected to one another and how visual or verbal cues signal key content. This is successfully accomplished when children are familiar with the purposes behind a particular macrostructure and, more specically, with the strategies that act as cues for key information. Based on Study 1, it is hypothesized that each macrostructure delivers content using distinct microlevel strategies that are tied to that particular macrostructure type. Narratives use coherent and sequential text structures to present content. In contrast, expositories use text structures that pattern information according to the purpose of the expository text (e.g., sequential, cause and effect, compare and contrast). Because children have little experience with expository texts, it is likely that they will experience difculty in learning from these programs. Macrostructures organize content by pairing it with specic learning strategies to convey information. First, the effects of the two macrostructures on childrens vocabulary and comprehension scores were evaluated for signicant differences. Next, two sets of regressions were used to link strategies to outcomes for each macrostructure independently (i.e., comprehension strategies predicted outcomes for narratives and expositories separately). These analyses were performed to identify which strategies predicted what outcomes. All reported results are signicant at alpha level p < .05 or better.

Method Participants After securing permission from principals at four elementary schools, teachers sent consent forms home with students of the target age. Parents of 71 second- and third-grade children attending four Title 1 public schools in two large Midwestern cities provided consent. Forty-two were girls (M = 7.5 years) and 29 were boys (M = 7.8 years). This age was recruited because the children had at least 1 year of basic reading instruction, resulting in some ability to decode words, a necessary skill for the original closed caption intervention (Linebarger, Piotrowski, & Greenwood, 2010). Eighty-two percent of the families reported incomes below $30,000, 5 children had an identied

Study 2 Research and theory assert that childrens vocabulary knowledge and comprehension abilities will be higher for programs that depict a more positive literacy environment, that use more comprehension strategies, and that use more vocabulary strategies.

Television Features and Literacy

1589

reading learning disability, and 54.3% of the children had oral reading rates below a benchmark indicating risk for reading failure (Good & Kaminski, 2002; second-grade at-risk threshold 43 wpm, third-grade at-risk threshold 76 wpm). There were 52.6% at-risk second graders (i.e., at-risk M = 22.3 wpm, all other second graders M = 71.2 wpm) and 61.5% at-risk third graders (i.e., at-risk M = 45.3 wpm, all other third graders M = 93.6 wpm). Children were recruited from urban schools in predominantly low-socioeconomic-status (SES) communities: Fifty-six percent were African American children who spoke English as their rst language and the remaining 44% were Hispanic children learning English as a second language (i.e., English language learners). Procedure After obtaining parental consent, all participating children completed a series of pretest assessments to measure baseline literacy skills. Following pretesting, children viewed one episode per visit across 12 visits. Video stimuli were presented to groups of 2 to 3 children using a 13-in. TV VCR combination unit positioned approximately 12 ft away from them. Experimenters sat to the right and slightly behind the children and were directed to interact very little except to redirect attention to the screen in the event that it became necessary. The viewing took place in empty classrooms during the after school program hours at each of the schools. After viewing each episode, children participated in a short, individually administered posttest (i.e., there were enough research assistants to test all children immediately after viewing). Measures Program-specic vocabulary knowledge. Vocabulary knowledge was assessed in two ways: word uency and denition knowledge. Children read ve target words selected from each video after viewing the video. All words from each program were counted, categorized, and selected if they connected to an episodes main themes but were not function words (e.g., articles, prepositions, auxiliary verbs, participles; Watt, 2007). With these criteria, 60% of the words were nouns (e.g., notch, warrior), 27% were verbs (e.g., arrive, locate), and 13% were adjectives (e.g., thirsty, rude). Examiners scored childrens word reading for accuracy and uency (4-point scale: 0 = inaccurate, 1 = read with difculty, 2 = sounded out, 3 = uent; Word Fluency). Examin-

ers were trained and practiced until interexaminer agreement on uency scores equaled 90% or higher. After reading each target word, children were then asked to provide a denition. If the child was unable to read the target word, a clear pronunciation was provided prior to asking for the denition. Denitions were scored on a 3-point scale (0 = no or inaccurate response, 1 = partially correct denition, 2 = accurate and complete denition; Denition Knowledge). Two independent raters scored 11% of the denitions. Krippendorffs alpha indicated strong intercoder reliability for all denition scores (a = .93). Program comprehension. Comprehension questions included a literal and an inferential question for each episode. The literal question asked children to identify a critical story event that was visually and verbally presented (e.g., When X happened what happened next?) while the inferential question required the children to provide the main idea of the program (i.e., What do you think [program] was trying to teach you?). Comprehension questions were scored on a 3-point scale (0 = no inaccurate response, 1 = partially correct answer, 2 = accurate complete answer). Two independent raters scored 11% of the answers. Krippendorffs alpha was acceptable for both literal comprehension (a = .91) and inferential comprehension (a = .86). Baseline vocabulary knowledge and literacy ability. Prior to viewing any videos and after viewing all 12 videos, children read a list of all target words (n = 60 words). Although not the focus of this article, children demonstrated signicant growth in video-specic word uency scores from pre- to posttest (i.e., 16.5% growth; Linebarger et al., 2010). General literacy ability was measured using two DIBELS tasks: Nonsense Word Fluency (NWF) and Oral Reading Fluency (ORF; Good & Kaminski, 2002). Mean performance was 52.8 letter-sounds per minute (NWF; SD = 29.3) and 48.9 wpm (ORF; SD = 32.1). Analytical Approach Each validation outcome (i.e., Word Fluency, Denition Knowledge, Literal Comprehension, Inferential Comprehension) was z-score transformed to facilitate comparisons across literacy skills in each relevant analysis. Next, to control for potential third variables associated with the childs baseline literacy ability, a covariate was constructed by z-score transforming scores on the two pretest DIBELS literacy tasks and then summing

1590

Linebarger and Piotrowski

these variables. Because these analyses were taken from a larger intervention study evaluating the effectiveness of closed captions on the literacy skills of two different populations (i.e., low-SES African American children and English language learners; Linebarger et al., 2010), we included two controls to extract the variance from the relations among strategies and child outcomes: intervention condition (i.e., one group saw all videos with captions while the other saw the same videos without captions) and the childs primary language. In preliminary analyses, the patterns of results were the same for both English- and Spanish-speaking children (i.e., all results were in the same direction; however, the ndings were more robust for English language learners); therefore, adopting this strategy (i.e., controlling for primary language) appeared reasonable. Gender was unrelated to any of the outcomes and was dropped from further analyses. To assess potential dependency issues resulting from viewing all 12 videos, two sets of intraclass correlations were calculated: between-subjects differences across children (i.e., .12.16) or betweensubjects differences across video (.92.94). Larger intraclass correlations indicate that either videos or children (depending on the analyses performed) are more likely to share a common experience resulting in violation of the independence assumption. Given the larger variation between videos versus between children, dependency associated with individual performance across the 12 videos was minimal (Guo, 2005).

Results and Discussion Two repeated measures analyses of covariance (ANCOVAs) were computed to examine child outcomes by macrostructure. Table 3 contains means, standard deviations, and ANCOVA results. Although there were no signicant differences for literacy environment codes, it was possible that macrostructures would mediate the relations between codes and outcomes; therefore, regressions predicting outcomes using three sets of codes (i.e., literacy environment, comprehension strategies, vocabulary strategies) were conducted separately for each macrostructure. Both unstandardized (B) and standardized (b) coefcients from the regression models are found in Table 4. An alpha level of .05 was used for all statistical tests. Only interaction and main effects relevant to the hypotheses are presented next. The Role of Macrostructure on Comprehension and Vocabulary Knowledge Program comprehension. Based on Study 1 ndings, we hypothesized that comprehension scores would be higher after viewing narratives compared with viewing expositories. To test this hypothesis, a 2 2 (Macrostructure Comprehension Outcomes) repeated measures ANCOVA with repeated measures on the last factor was computed. Our hypothesis was supported. Comprehension was higher for narratives compared with expositories although the effect was qualied by a signicant two-way

Table 3 Means, Standard Deviations, and Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) Results for Outcomes Alone and by Macrostructure Outcomes Word uency Denition knowledge Literal comprehension Inferential comprehension M SD Range 0120 0133 04 04 Expository M SE MS

28.63 25.02 33.44 19.86 1.46 0.85 1.69 0.68 Narrative M SE

ANCOVA (F-value) O MS O

Outcomes Vocabulary knowledge Word uency Denition knowledge Comprehension type Literal Inferential

28.02 36.23 1.64 1.65

0.88 0.92 0.04 0.03

29.25 30.66 1.29 1.73

0.88 0.92 0.04 0.03

4.40*

(0.005)

37.21*** (0.042)

21.41*** (0.025)

11.77*** (0.014)

2.29

(0.003)

37.05*** (0.042)

Note. MS = Macrostructure; O = Outcome. Values in parentheses represent partial eta squared (gp2). *p < .05. ***p < .001.

Television Features and Literacy

Table 4 Regression Coefcients Predicting Outcomes Using Coded Strategies Narrative regression coefcients WF DK LC IC WF Expository regression coefcients DK LC IC

1591

Literacy environment PU )0.79*** ()0.26) )0.93*** ()0.39) 0.03** (0.23) 0.01 (0.05) )0.15 ()0.05) )0.81*** ()0.36) 0.03*** (0.35) 0.006 (0.09) PS 2.93** (0.24) 3.35*** (0.36) 0.09* (0.21) 0 (0.00) )1.28* ()0.09) 1.49** (0.13) )0.02 ()0.05) ).004 ()0.01) OP 1.35*** (0.34) 1.98*** (0.64) 0.05*** (0.33) 0.003 (0.02) )0.32*** ()0.26) )0.34*** ()0.34) 0.01** (0.14) ).006*** ()0.19) R2 0.56*** .25*** 0.26*** 0.01 0.49*** 0.27*** 0.13*** 0.06*** Comprehension strategies (0.10) MS )2.31** ()0.17) )3.48*** ()0.34) )0.28*** ()0.58) 0.05 (0.11) )2.53 ()0.24) 11.90*** (1.32) )0.43*** ()1.24) 0.03 PK 0.02*** (0.16) 0.03*** (0.31) 0.0002 (0.06) 0.001* (0.15) 0.03* (0.17) 0.22*** (1.44) )0.006*** ()0.95) 0.0003 (0.08) SM )0.002 ()0.03) )0.002 ()0.05) )0.0002 ()0.10) )0.0*** ()0.23) 0.01 (0.18) )0.07*** ()1.49) 0.002*** (1.19) 0.00001 (0.01) QP 0.65*** (0.32) 0.97*** (0.62) 0.03*** (0.38) )0.01* ()0.22) 0.25 (0.13) )1.09*** ()0.69) 0.04*** (0.65) )0.01 ()0.22) 2 R 0.57*** 0.27*** 0.24*** 0.05** 0.52*** 0.49*** 0.18*** 0.05** Vocabulary strategies TW 0.19 (0.07) 0.36 (0.16) )0.07*** ()0.69) 0.02 (0.25) 0.41 (0.10) )3.64*** ()1.06) 0.12*** (0.87) )0.02 ()0.15) NR 0.24 (0.07) )0.09 ()0.03) )0.08*** ()0.58) )0.03 ()0.23) )0.53** ()0.29) 1.05*** (0.71) )0.05*** ()0.89) 0.006 (0.13) SL )1.25 ()0.04) )6.49 ()0.25) 0.25 (0.20) )0.94** ()0.88) )12.98*** ()0.49) 10.37*** (0.49) )0.59*** ()0.71) 0.22 (0.34) %D )1.76 ()0.18) )0.49 ()0.07) )0.15 ()0.42) 0.37*** (1.21) )4.21*** ()0.53) 2.07** (0.33) )0.13*** ()0.54) 0.01 (0.07) R2 0.56*** 0.28*** 0.28*** 0.06*** 0.53*** 0.48*** 0.20*** 0.06***

Note. Both unstandardized (B) and standardized (b) regression coefcients are presented. b coefcients are displayed in parentheses. p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

(Macrostructure Comprehension Outcomes) interaction. Literal comprehension was higher after viewing narratives while inferential comprehension was higher after viewing expositories. Univariate tests indicated that differences were signicant for literal comprehension, F(1, 847) = 36.70, gp2 = .042, and marginally signicant (p < .10) for inferential comprehension, F(1, 847) = 2.85, gp2 = .003. Program-specic vocabulary knowledge. Based on Study 1 ndings, we hypothesized that programspecic vocabulary knowledge would be higher after viewing expositories compared with viewing narratives. To test this hypothesis, a 2 2 (Macrostructure Vocabulary Outcomes) repeated measures ANCOVA with repeated measures on the last factor was conducted. Our hypothesis was not supported. Main effects for Vocabulary Outcomes and Macrostructure were signicant. Denition knowledge was higher than word uency while vocabulary knowledge overall was higher after viewing narratives compared with expositories. As with comprehension, the Macrostructure main effect was qualied by a signicant two-way (Macrostructure Vocabulary Outcomes) interaction. As predicted, word uency was higher after viewing expositories. Contrary to our prediction, denition knowledge was higher after viewing narratives. Univariate tests indicated that these differ-

ences were signicant for denition knowledge, F(1, 847) = 18.52, gp2 = .021, and not signicant for word uency, F(1, 847) = 0.98, gp2 = .001. What Is the Relation Between the Literacy Environment and Childrens Program Comprehension and Program-Specic Vocabulary Knowledge by Macrostructure? Recall that characters use of and positive comments about print and onscreen print were hypothesized to create a conducive learning environment. For narratives, two of the three codes predicted outcomes. Positive statements about print and onscreen print positively predicted literal comprehension and both vocabulary outcomes while characters print use supported literal comprehension and suppressed word uency and denition knowledge. Unlike narratives, there were no consistent patterns between the literacy environment and outcomes within expositories. Each time characters used print, denition knowledge scores dropped, literal comprehension improved, and inferential comprehension marginally improved. Positive statements about print supported denition knowledge and suppressed word uency. Onscreen print negatively predicted denition knowledge, word

1592

Linebarger and Piotrowski

uency, and inferential comprehension and positively predicted literal comprehension. What Is the Relation Between Comprehension Strategies and Childrens Comprehension and Vocabulary Knowledge by Macrostructure? There were four comprehension strategies: main segments, time spent directing viewers to access prior knowledge, time spent summarizing a main segment, and total questions predictions used to highlight upcoming content. Results were fairly consistent for narratives; that is, most coefcients were in the same direction (although some were unrelated) across outcomes. As main segments increased, literal comprehension and both vocabulary scores decreased. Spending time activating prior knowledge predicted higher vocabulary and inferential comprehension while time spent summarizing main content suppressed literal (marginally) and inferential comprehension. As characters questions and predictions increased, vocabulary performance and literal comprehension increased while inferential comprehension decreased. For expositories, the results were less consistent. As main segments increased, word uency and literal comprehension suffered while denition knowledge improved. Activating prior knowledge both positively predicted vocabulary outcomes and negatively predicted literal comprehension. In contrast, longer summaries predicted lower denition knowledge and higher literal comprehension. As the number of questions and predictions increased, denition knowledge and inferential comprehension decreased and literal comprehension increased. What Is the Relation Between Vocabulary Strategies and Childrens Program Comprehension and ProgramSpecic Vocabulary Knowledge by Macrostructure? Vocabulary strategies consisted of four coded variables: frequency of target word use, average sentence length, percentage of Dolch words, and the narration rate. Interestingly, for narratives, none of the vocabulary strategies predicted word uency or denition knowledge. Literal comprehension declined as repetition of target words and the narration rate increased. Inferential comprehension declined as sentence length increased while it improved as the percentage of Dolch words increased. For expositories, the role of vocabulary strategies was much more prominent. Word uency scores

decreased as the narration rate, the sentence length and the percentage of Dolch words increased. Denition knowledge scores decreased with each repetition of a target word and increased with faster narration rates, longer sentences, and a higher percentage of Dolch words. Literal comprehension increased with each repetition of a target word, and decreased with faster narration rates, longer sentences, and a smaller percentage of Dolch words. Inferential comprehension scores marginally increased with longer sentences.

General Discussion In Study 1, a set of learning strategies were identied and coded across two episodes of six childrens TV programs. Programs were further categorized using one of two macrostructures: narrative or expository. In Study 2, working with a population of children from low-SES homes at risk for literacy difculties, we evaluated the general effects associated with watching content presented within each macrostructure as well as whether and how the coded strategies embedded in each macrostructure predicted vocabulary and comprehension. The Role of Narrative and Expository Macrostructures Study 1 established that narrative macrostructures contained more learning strategies hypothesized to support comprehension outcomes while expository macrostructures contained more of both supportive and unsupportive strategies hypothesized to predict vocabulary outcomes. We further hypothesized that narratives would predict stronger comprehension performance while expositories would predict stronger vocabulary performance. Study 2 partially conrmed these hypotheses. When viewing narrative macrostructures, all outcomes were higher compared with outcomes when viewing expository macrostructures. Programs using narrative macrostructures tell stories with a beginning, middle, and end; use characters; include plot or conict; and create a setting. In other words, they present content in a structurally homogenous way using prototypical story parts. Narrative macrostructures should reduce processing demands due to childrens considerable narrative experience in real-life, print-based, and TV-based contexts (Fisch, 2004; Linebarger & Piotrowski, 2009). This narrative experience likely translated into both sensitivity to and automaticity with the structures typical of narratives, making

Television Features and Literacy

1593

children faster and more competent at identifying story events (i.e., literal comprehension), lling in gaps in presented content, and freeing up valuable cognitive resources to make connections to real-life situations or broader themes (i.e., inferential comprehension; Smith & Ragan, 2005). As predicted, identication of literal story events was stronger for narrative macrostructures. Although narratives were expected to make it easier to refocus cognitive resources toward making broader connections, children infrequently did this (Linebarger, 2001). Previously, deep processing was more likely to occur if content was moderately novel and of intermediate complexity while supercial processing occurred with content that was overly familiar or excessively challenging (Rice et al., 1982; Roller, 1990). With experience, processing narratives becomes automatic and children are more likely to allocate minimal resources to them. Unlike the prototypical format of narratives, programs that use an expository macrostructure present content in structurally heterogeneous ways (Best et al., 2008). Based on Study 1, watching expositories was expected to predict stronger vocabulary outcomes when compared with narratives because expositories used more supportive vocabulary strategies. Contrary to this prediction, vocabulary performance (particularly denition knowledge) was higher after viewing narratives versus expositories. The structural heterogeneity inherent in expositories offers an explanation. When processing unfamiliar content delivered through an expository macrostructure, children must simultaneously process the new content and the general purpose of an expository text to effectively learn the content. Duke and Kays (1998) contend that young children can learn from expository texts but, because they are not consistently exposed to these formats until as late as fourth grade, learning from expository texts is difcult and frustrating. The Role of Learning Strategies In Study 1, three categories of learning strategies embedded in childrens educational TV were identied and coded: strategies depicting a supportive literacy environment, strategies supporting comprehension, and strategies supporting vocabulary. Despite selecting strategies with evidence of their effectiveness in other contexts, the hypothesized effects were not uniformly present. Instead, relations between strategy and outcome differed by strategy type, program macrostructure, specic

child outcome, or some combination of these three factors. Refocusing interpretation to the cognitive activity generated by a strategy claried the inconsistent ndings. Smith and Ragan (2005) proposed ve broad types of learning strategies: organizing, rehearsing, elaborating, metacognitive, and affective. The rst four strategies elicit specic cognitive activity while affective strategies create environments that trigger attention to and increased engagement with content. No metacognitive strategies were coded in this study. An additional layer of complexity was introduced by the macrostructures used to deliver content. As described, macrostructures introduce a framework for content through their use of particular and predictable learning strategies that arrange ideas and make connections among these ideas. Narrative macrostructures use a fairly uniform set of strategies and childrens accumulated experiences with narratives are substantial. Coupling predictability with experience suggests that narratives may be better macrostructures for delivering content, especially when that content is unfamiliar or complex. Unlike narratives, expository macrostructures are highly variable and dependent on the purpose of a program or the unique characteristics of particular content. Expositories can include strategies that describe a topic, present sequential or chronological information, introduce cause and effect, or highlight similarities and differences. Because young children have little experience with expository forms, learning content embedded with these forms may prove challenging. Recent evidence suggests that introducing expository text in preschool or early elementary school can help children become familiar with a range of expository forms and subsequently mitigate difculties that arise when children shift from learning to read to reading to learn around fourth grade (Duke & Kays, 1998). Organizing strategies structured content by encasing it within a common framework and by using simple supporting text to increase attention to conceptual content (Smith & Ragan, 2005). In this study, simple supporting text was dened by more high-frequency words (i.e., Dolch words), longer but less complex sentences (sentence length), and narration rates that did not exceed the average wpm that children this age are able to adequately process (i.e., narration rate; Barron, 2004). These strategies worked in concert to increase or decrease the volume of content contained in an episode. Greater use of main segments was associated with more unique content ideas that structured the

1594

Linebarger and Piotrowski

presentation and ow of that content. As main segments increased, the narration rate sped up considerably while the sentence length modestly increased. Sentence length was more highly related to Dolch words, suggesting that sentences became longer by using more high-frequency words while narration rates became faster due to more content words. The latter relation indicates cognitive overload. Narratives with more main segments negatively predicted word uency, denition knowledge, and literal comprehension likely because extra main segments were indicative of more irrelevant subplots, making it hard to keep the plot points together. Both vocabulary outcomes and literal comprehension suffered as a result. These difculties were compounded when dialogue was spoken faster and sentence lengths were longer. Simplifying the content came at a cost as denition knowledge suffered. Without key conceptual content or extended discussions about particular concepts, viewers were able to provide limited denitions. Inference generation was supported with shorter dialog segments lled with more high-frequency words. Expositories contained more main segments, longer sentences, more Dolch words, and faster narration rates. As a result, word uency and literal comprehension suffered. In contrast, the conceptual understanding needed to provide solid word denitions was supported by more volume. Main segments tended to build on each other throughout an expository episode. The three expositories used in this study contained multiple examples and descriptions that linked to the theme of that episode. For example, in RR, one episode about humpback whales featured multiple vignettes that dened this type of whale from several viewpoints, including a scientist, a whale-watching boat captain, the host, and a nonction book. Rehearsing strategies directly supported the encoding and retrieval of information by providing multiple opportunities for practice. Coded strategies were repetition of target words and repetition of main segment content (i.e., summaries). When content is repeated, it signals that it is important and should be attended to. Repeating target words is a fairly simple rehearsal tool while providing main segment summaries is a more complex rehearsal strategy. When narratives used more rehearsal strategies, comprehension was better. Childrens experience and facility processing narratives freed up resources to devote to comprehending content. By spending time repeating content, children were

better able to identify story events (i.e., literal comprehension) and, more important, generate inferences about these events. Rehearsal strategies embedded in expository macrostructures aided acquisition of denition knowledge and, to a lesser extent, literal comprehension. Expositories contained noticeably more content than narratives. To ensure adequate comprehension of vocabulary, expositories included multiple rehearsal opportunities (i.e., words averaged 27 repeats and summaries averaged 8 min). Interestingly, summaries were almost 2 min longer in narratives, a nding that may explain why outcomes were higher after viewing narratives. Elaborating strategies help learners create links between new content and existing prior knowledge. Two strategies elicited this cognitive activity: time spent activating viewers prior knowledge and total questions and predictions made about upcoming content. Both strategies enabled viewers to establish associations between new information and prior knowledge, to identify key concepts or story events, and to increase the personal relevance of the content. When narratives used more elaboration, all outcomes were higher especially vocabulary. As with the other cognitive strategy types, when used in a narrative macrostructure, children were able to devote their attention to conceptual information and story events rather than needing to split time simultaneously to make sense of the presentation format and the content. Elaboration strategies used in expositories predicted more denition knowledge and inferential comprehension. Elaborating is a demanding cognitive activity because it requires that children understand program content, possess knowledge about how content links to the macrostructure, and connect content and strategy to relevant background knowledge. Using too many elaborating strategies impeded literal comprehension likely because they directed attention to conceptual understanding and away from key events. In the comprehension hierarchy, knowing story events is less important over time while generating inferences or themes is more important. Frequently using affective strategies should inuence engagement with and motivation toward attending to content resulting in a more favorable learning environment. Three affective strategies were hypothesized to create such an environment: characters using print, characters making positive statements about print, and the display of onscreen print. These strategies were conceptually linked to

Television Features and Literacy

1595

three instructional conditions found to inuence learning: demonstration of the desired behaviors by a respected role model, opportunities for practice using those behaviors, and reinforcement of those behaviors (Gagne, 1985; Smith & Ragan, 2005). Narratives supported program-specic learning (i.e., word uency, denition knowledge, literal comprehension) when characters made positive statements about print or text was displayed onscreen. Characters using print hindered literal comprehension and both vocabulary outcomes. The characters using print may not be likeable or credible or there may have been too little explicit reinforcement of the benets of print (Gagne, 1985; Smith & Ragan, 2005). These explanations are supported by the positive relation between positive statements and outcomes. Onscreen print provided opportunities for reading practice and elaboration by providing visual and aural cues that make print more salient and easier to decode. While the literacy environment helped children learn program-specic content, this learning did not transfer to inferencing. Connections between affective strategies and outcomes were less consistent for expositories. Modeling print use predicted both comprehension outcomes but impeded denition knowledge while positive statements predicted stronger denition knowledge and impeded word uency. Onscreen print supported literal comprehension only. The remaining three outcomes were diminished by more onscreen print. These inconsistencies are likely due to a combination of cognitive overload and gaps in knowledge brought on by unfamiliar forms and content. Conclusion The results of the two studies indicate that macrostructures and learning strategies must be considered simultaneously to understand how children learn from televised content. To facilitate learning, programs should generate cognitive activity that takes advantage of the broader presentation framework along with particular strategies that lead to learning when used in this framework. Over time and with experience, processing demands shift due to stimulus-specic and person-specic factors. Stimulus-specic factors included macrostructures and learning strategies used to convey content and generate cognitive activity. In contrast, person-specic factors included experience with macrostructures

(particularly for expository texts) and accumulated background knowledge about the content and its presentation form. While children typically have more accumulated experiences with narratives, they can, when taught to do so, learn equally well from expository macrostructures. TV provides a unique opportunity to familiarize children with expository structures. There is clear evidence that TV comprehension is linked to reading comprehension; that is, TV comprehension was highly correlated with print comprehension in preschool (Linebarger & Piotrowski, 2009) and predictive of conventional reading success longitudinally (i.e., TV comprehension at 6 years predicted reading comprehension at 8 years; Kendeou et al., 2005). General processing skills used across media share many commonalities. As such, educational TV can play a vital role in preparing at-risk children in low-SES families to read.

References
Anderson, D. R., Huston, A. C., Schmitt, K. L., Linebarger, D. L., & Wright, J. C. (2001). Early childhood television viewing and adolescent behavior: The Recontact Study. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 66(1), 1143. Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory of mass communication. Media Psychology, 3, 265299. Barron, A. E. (2004). Auditory instruction. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research in educational communications and technology (pp. 949978). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Best, R., Floyd, R., & McNamara, D. (2008). Differential competencies contributing to childrens comprehension of narrative and expository texts. Reading Psychology, 29, 137164. 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 Blues Clues on the viewing behaviors and comprehension of preschool children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 630637. Duke, N. K., & Kays, J. (1998). Can I say once upon a time?: Kindergarten children developing knowledge of information book language. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13, 295318. Fisch, S. M. (2004). Childrens learning from educational television. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Gagne, R. (1985). The conditions of learning and theory of instruction (4th ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Good, R. H., & Kaminski, R. A. (2002) Dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills (DIBELS). Eugene, OR: Institute for the Development of Educational Achievement. Retrieved February 11, 2008, from http://dibels.uoregon. edu/

1596

Linebarger and Piotrowski Nord, C. W., Lennon, J., Liu, B., & Chandler, K. (1999) Home literacy activities and signs of childrens emerging literacy, 1993 and 1999. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Ofce of Educational Research and Improvement. Retrieved June 28, 2007, from http:// nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2000026 Patterson, J. L. (2002). Relationships of expressive vocabulary to frequency of reading and television experience among bilingual toddlers. Applied Psycholinguistics, 23, 493508. Reinking, D., & Schreiner, R. (1985). The effects of computer-mediated text on measures of reading comprehension and reading behavior. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 536552. Renninger, K. A. (1992). Individual interest and development: Implications for theory and practice. In K. A. Renninger, S. Hidi, & A. Krapp (Eds.), The role of interest in learning and development (pp. 361395). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Rice, M. L., Huston, A. C., & Wright, J. C. (1982). The forms of television: Effects on childrens attention, comprehension, and social behavior. In D. Pearl, L. Bouthilet, & J. B. Lazar (Eds.), Television and behavior: Ten years of scientic progress and implications for the 80s (Vol. 2, pp. 2438). Washington, DC: Government Printing Ofce. Rice, M. L., & Woodsmall, L. (1988). Lessons from television: Childrens word learning when viewing. Child Development, 59, 420429. Roller, C. M. (1990). The interaction between knowledge and structure variables in the processing of expository prose. Reading Research Quarterly, 25, 7989. Sadoski, M., & Paivio, A. (2001). Imagery and text: A dual coding theory of reading and writing. Reading and Writing, 16, 259262. Scarborough, H. S., & Dobrich, W. (1994). On the efcacy of reading to preschoolers. Developmental Review, 14, 245302. Schiefele, U. (1998). Individual interest and learningWhat we know and what we dont know. In L. Hoffman, A. Krapp, & K. A. Renninger (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seeon Conference on Interest and Gender (pp. 91104). Kiel, Germany: IPN. Smith, P., & Ragan, T. (2005). Instructional design (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Jossey-Bass. Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Grifn, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difculties in young children. Washington DC: National Academy Press. Stein, N. L., & Trabasso, T. (1982). Whats in a story? An approach to comprehension. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of instruction (pp. 213268). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Szabo, M., & Lamielle-Landy, A. (1981). Television-based reading instruction, reading achievement, and task involvement. Journal of Educational Research, 74, 239244. Taylor, S. E. (1964). Listening: What research says to the teacher. Washington, DC: National Education Association of the United States.

Guo, S. (2005). Analyzing grouped data with hierarchical linear modeling. Children and Youth Services Review, 27, 637652. Hayes, A. F., & Krippendorff, K. (2007). Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data. Communication Methods and Measures, 1, 7789. Herrman, D. J., Yoder, C., Gruneberg, M., & Payne, D. (2006). Applied cognitive psychology: A textbook. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Jensema, C. J., McCann, R., & Ramsey, S. (1996). Closedcaptioned television presentation speed and vocabulary. American Annals of the Deaf, 141, 284292. Kendeou, P., Lynch, J. S., van den Broek, P., Espin, C. A., White, M. J., & Kremer, K. (2005). Developing successful readers: Building early comprehension skills through television viewing and listening. Early Childhood Education Journal, 33, 9198. Linebarger, D. L. (2001). Learning to read from television: The effects of using captions and narration. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 288298. 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, 297308. Linebarger, D. L., & Piotrowski, J. T. (2009). TV as Storyteller: How exposure to television narratives impacts atrisk preschoolers story knowledge and narrative skills. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 27, 4769. Linebarger, D. L., Piotrowski, J. T., & Greenwood, C. R. (2010). Onscreen print: The role of closed captions as a supplemental literacy tool. Journal of Research in Reading, 33(2), 148167. Linebarger, D. L., & Walker, D. (2005). Infants and toddlers television viewing and relations to language outcomes. American Behavioral Scientist, 46, 624645. May, F. (1998). Reading as communication: To help children write and read. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill. McMahon, M. L. (1983). Development of reading-whilelistening skills in the primary grades. Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 3852. Michel, E., & Roebers, C. M. (2008). Childrens knowledge acquisition through lm: Inuence of programme characteristics. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 1228 1244. Naigles, L., & Mayeux, L. (2001). Television as incidental language teacher. In D. G. Singer & J. L. Singer (Eds.), Handbook for children and the media (pp. 135152). London: Sage. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientic research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00-476). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Ofce. Nielsen Media Research. (2003). 2002 03 kids programming AA kids 2-5 rating ranker. New York: Nielsen Media Research.

Television Features and Literacy Taylor, B. M., Peterson, D. S., Pearson, P. D., & Rodriguez, M. C. (2002). Looking inside classrooms: Reecting on the how as well as the what in effective reading instruction. The Reading Teacher, 56, 270279. Uchikoshi, Y. (2005). Narrative development in bilingual kindergarteners: Can Arthur help? Developmental Psychology, 41, 464478.

1597

Watt, R. J. C. (2007). Concordance software. Retrieved August 28, 2007, from http://www.concordancesoftware.co.uk/ 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, 13471366.

This document is a scanned copy of a printed document. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material.