Verified by 
The main objective of this commentary is to bring together needs, wants, and requirements from different fields to discuss topics related to training graduate researchers and cognitive professionals within the field of children's media. This field is inclusive of television, web-based platforms, computer games and other advanced technologies (in this article referred to as “artifacts”). The aim is also to present specific questions and preliminary suggestions with relevance to what those in the industry are seeking to join their team in assisting in product execution.
Presently, there is no clear-cut formula, and many in the children’s media research industry who are most successful come from varying backgrounds of educational training and experience. Media contains potential implications for a variety of developmental, cognitive, social and behavioral elements within child development. However, research efforts arrive from an amalgamation of academic disciplines (Lemish, 2013). Since there are few academic programs at the graduate level that offer specific children’s media degrees focusing on the inclusion of educational content and best medium practices, a call for organization is warranted. A system is needed to determine how one interested in a career in the field of children’s media research in practice can focus their course of study beyond the undergraduate degree. This article considers the following perspectives: What is an ideal academic background for a children’s media researcher; why are internships a necessity; and finally, can creators and academics speak the same language? This piece highlights a blend of materials gathered from work with academics, developers, producers, psychologists, and researchers within the field. It also intends to inspire new projects and offer opportunities for future collaboration between various academic and media production areas to reach young audience members through distinctive cognitive and educational theory based curriculum parameters.
The industry has many media experts, many psychology experts, many education experts and far too many expert opinions that are not brought together under one common thread. One example of the problem was illustrated most recently when scare tactics were used to dissuade parents and caregivers from seeing the benefits of educational media. Rowan (2014) called for a ban on any handheld device for children 12 years old and younger. While she was listed as a pediatric occupational therapist and cited recommendations from the American Academy of Pediatrics, her information presentation fell short in its interpretation of said material. It recommended to parents a ban on all devices for fear of long-term harm. Sadly, those without the proper statistical research training would see her comments as truth as the setting was news-type in format. Kleeman, Revelle, & Taylor Piotrowski (2014) responded Rowan (2014) simply fed into caregivers’ technology anxieties presenting the correlations’ research as cause when it is clearly based on a misinterpreted relationship. This reminds us of how technology is an incredibly powerful educational resource with purposeful designs. A mind that formatted this error in interpretation would do well to train future generations of children’s media researchers. But how?
Currently, there is a growing disconnect between writers who claim to have supportive evidence and those who seek to publish sensationalized pieces simply to attract readership. When those not versed in basic research methodology and the graduate mantra of “correlation does not denote causation,” read online research, it is conceivable such material presented must be correct. Therefore, a better-trained group with more standard training is needed to detangle these crudely supported snarls.
The included article comparison analysis is the inspiration for this piece (as well as how I came to think about the qualities that would be most helpful in content execution). Prior to this post, the formulation of a masters areas of focus related to children’s media within a graduate degree program provides such potential elements children’s media can offer. While this is not on the books as an official major, it is a stepping-stone to creating a collection of courses that relates to an academic focus needed to help with the goal of more necessary training.
Academic Background for Content Assistance
A potential graduate academic background course of study should contain material related to the cognitive psychological state of children's media for preschoolers through late adolescence in the form of lectures, discussions, program viewing, critical research projects, guests lecturers from the field (production and research related), and internship experiences. A program of this type must also consider the psychological role of television, the Internet, portable devices and the like in regards to family and peer relationships, education and social issues as well as cognitive research techniques relevant to production. For instance, historically it is important to understand that children learn better verbal information more effectively from radio programming while pictorial, action, and the overall content material is more ideally learned from television. Finding the best method to present this information can have implications depending on the audience’s developmental level (Greenfield & Beagles-Roos, 1988; Greenfield, Farrar, & Beagles-Roos, 1986). May are still determining, even now, what digital devices and applications are best for learning any number of topics. With the increased availability of educational content within numerous artifacts, there is a need to serve production companies with a better crop of candidates not only their development but also children’s education from media as a supplement at large. Creating this standard within the community will serve to analyze and evaluate children’s media while considering overall functioning – both cognitively and developmentally.
In order to be a successful team member to any production company, an effective graduate training program within children’s media would start by having the follow abilities highlighted within their plan of study: the ability to 1) characterize the developmental stages from infancy through late adolescence; 2) be knowledgeable about a variety of media artifacts children view during different developmental stages; 3) become familiar with different research methodologies used in both cognitive and developmental psychologies; 4) perform psychological data-gathering research exercises collecting information from child viewers; 5) identify important cognitive psychology elements that determine the positive and negative qualities of any media artifact used by this age group; 6) psychologically assess artifacts as supplemental material for both classroom and home settings; 7) understand and evaluate how cognitive and developmental theories and frameworks underlie the successful production of children’s media, and 8) evaluate how other cognitive and developmental psychological theories impact children’s behavior.
Internships as Necessity
Students learn from what they see and hear; some learning emanates from our media world in our role as consumers. However, this cannot help to serve as a training method unless these individuals are behind the screen, especially in the formative field of research. What kinds of models are in operation as a mentee (specifically from the perspective of those in the field)? One who keeps interns at close hand to see the subtle behaviors children engage in during media use – for instance, eyes on screen most of the time, or not? Conversations with their peers, a laugh, a point, a swipe, a shrug, which are all valuable to the effectiveness of the product that needs meticulous categorization and organization and are often followed by the questions “Would you play/watch this again?” “Tell me your favorite part?” These and other interview questions meant to record the engagement and involvement of a child’s young media mind. While we can learn about this in countless articles and textbooks, yet we can never replace the smile at minute 00:07:45 when a child responds “Yes!” to a question from a lead character breaking that fourth wall.
What models of good curriculum intervention research do we have during development? This area is limited to the academic world, as most networks and production companies would prefer to keep secret their tactics for sound protocol development or interactive techniques for recording behaviors during viewing and usage. However, would it not make the field more robust if training were more formal, organized and segmented into lessons in the hopes of changing the climate of educational curriculum implantation at large? Developmentally, cognitively and humanly, would that not benefit young minds?
Creators & Developers Speaking the Same Language
Creators want to develop a product and researchers want to do right by their young audiences in terms of developmentally appropriate language and content. Having different goals can often be a struggle as once hearing at a “unnamed conference” with a “will not mention panel” the goal of a “self-proclaimed children’s network” is simply to put “butts in the seats.” With different end points, communication between creative and academic minds can often be challenging. Recognizing and negotiating such mindsets is a skill that may serve a high purpose during graduate training.
Additionally, there are potential changes in production team dynamics when latent power dimensions surrounding the introduction of a new educational element may ruffle a few feathers in the second season of a brainstorming session meeting, for example. Research team members are asked to reevaluate their roles within the production team and the creative minds behind the art, the script, and the code should take a more attentive look at working with the experts rather than seeing the implementation of content as a “fun killer.” It may be troublesome to be the voice of curriculum, but training focused on collaborative dynamics may help those interested in the field overcome these “language” or conceptual issues when making noble attempts at knowledge implementation.
Implications for the Future
The implications of this call for solicitation in terms of improving the knowledge base of how children understand and are influenced by the media is not an issue that will disappear anytime soon. At the very least the attention to this issue can better shed light on the quality training our future researchers ought to partake in for the betterment of the production team’s conduct, as well as formative research. This alone would be a critical contribution to the foundational knowledge as well as for media consumption considerations since parents and students continually inquire as products update their latest versions every few months. Where do the changes end and where do we begin to present information to children through product development or to parents in consumption recommendations? It is also possible that by more precisely developing a course of study, research may be better able to investigate the possible interceding influence of a collection children’s media knowledge base on the effect of our young viewers and users.
More in-depth examinations within educational training are needed to make and create sound artifacts plus dispel any misrepresentations of data in the field. We need to employ methodologies in our research training that have greater depth than the potpourri of training that many of us in the field have come to learn as the norm. I would suggest a series of courses that cover psychological development, cognitive processing theory, practical media artifact development, formative research training tactics, and critical review of media artifacts and application since these could be, at best, the base for graduate training programs in children’s media. Perhaps a series of workshops in sound protocol practices with children centered focused groups about the processes in gathering data to assist creators in curriculum implantation – including what happens in the process, what tactics we use to interview them, what lack of attention may mean, what materials are needed for an interview session – is a feasible start.
Overall, I present the challenge to researchers in this topic idea. Define what aspects of your training make you the best suited to conduct research in the field and work to pass this knowledge on to your mentees and educational programs then seek to assist in training either through efforts of course instruction or internship offerings. The internships alone provide the most hands on experience in the field and one cannot continue a career in the area of children’s media research without one. Being led by an expert in the field and assisting with work and in most cases having access to several young eyes and brains ready to give you the final “Wow!” “Cool!” or noticing severe lack of eyes on screen during what you thought was an excellent example of curriculum implementation - are the treasures of the training where a more intensified recipe of study is warranted – if we decide to share. By gathering our efforts, rather than thinking we are dispelling our trade secrets, we can provide proper training for future production team members who have the minds to implement sound curriculum or means to effectively promote the positive aspects or elements of any medium.
References
Greenfield, P.M., & Beagles-Roos, J. (1988). Radio vs. television: The cognitive impact on different socioeconomic and ethic groups. Journal of Communication, 38(2), 71-92.
Greenfield, P.M., Farrar, D., & Beagles-Roos, J. (1986). Is the medium the message? An experimental comparison of the effects of radio on television on imagination. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 7, 201-208.
Kleeman, D., Revelle, G., & Taylor Piotrowski, J. (2014, March 11). 10 Reasons Why We Need Research Literacy, Not Scare Columns. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kleeman/10-reasons-why-we-needre_b_4940987.html
Lemish, D. (Ed.). (2013). The Routledge International Handbook of Children, Adolescents, and Media. Routledge.
Rowan, C. (2014, March 6). 10 Reasons Why Handheld Devices Should Be Banned for Children Under the Age of 12. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cris-rowan/10reasons-why-handheld-devices-should-be-banned_b_4899218.html
Jamie Krenn, Ph.D., is an adjunct assistant professor heading the Children's Media: Analysis and Evaluation area of focus within the master's program of Cognitive Studies and Education at Teachers College, Columbia University.
