11.9 Concluding Remarks

Milton Chen (1994c), director for the Center for Education and Lifelong Learning at KQED in San Francisco, summarizes many myths about the effects of television. He argues that to conclude that television is primarily responsible for "turning kids into couch potatoes, frying their brains, shortening their attention spans, and lowering their academic abilities" is too simplistic. Indeed, there are several suppositions about the effects of television that seem mystifying in light of the research reviewed in this chapter.

The first myth is that television encourages mental and physical passivity. Research reveals a that great deal of mental activity takes place while viewing, some in reaction to programming and the rest in reaction to. elements in the environment. In his essay on whether television stimulates or stultifies children, psychologist Howard Gardner (1982) argues that there is little if any support for the view that the child is a passive victim of television. Gardner says that, on the other hand, there is a great deal of evidence that the children are active transformers of what they see on television. He concludes that during the early childhood years, television is a great stimulator.

Similarly, it is often assumed that television has a negative effect on school achievement and reading. In reality, it has little effect if the home environment establishes rules that control the negative influences of television. In fact, for some students with difficulty in reading, it can provide another source of vocabulary and language development. Television can assist with reading and school readiness. A 1988 study by Anderson and Collins investigated the premise that television viewing has a detrimental effect on the cognitive development of children. They found that children comprehend programs produced for them, that they are cognitively active during leaming, and that effect on reading achievement is small relative to other factors (Anderson & Collins, 1988). Generally, the evidence shows that moderate amounts of television viewing are positively related to academic achievement, while heavy viewing is negatively associated.

Another myth is that television is a great leveler because rich and poor alike watch the same programming. It is obviously an oversimplification to assume that all variables including socioeconomic ones are thus equalized by watching the same television programs. It would be more accurate to say that television can help provide a common conceptual framework for a community. Socioeconomic groups use television differently, and television has different effects on these groups. Lower-income children watching Sesame Street gained more in every area except knowledge of the alphabet (Zill, Davies & Daly, 1994). On the other hand, the more educated the family, the more likely there will be supervised use of television. Children who experience rules related to television viewing are likely to gain the most from the television experience. Television may be helpful to individuals from a lower socioeconomic class because it provides stimulation rather than displacing more valuable activities. Television has the potential both to positively and negatively affect minorities' self-concept (Stroman, 1991). Another common belief is that television causes violent behavior. The research shows that while there is a relationship between television and aggression (see 4.4.4.3), the effects of this relationship vary depending on individual and environmental variables:

In sum, the empirical and theoretical evidence suggests that in general the effects of television's content depend in part on the extent to which contradictory messages are available, understood, and consistent. In the case of sex role attitudes, messages from television are consistent and either absent or reinforced in real life, whereas in the case of aggressive behavior, most viewers receive contradictory messages from both sources. All viewers may learn aggression from television, but whether they will perform it will depend on a variety of factors. If we wish to predict behavior, that is, performance, we need to know something of the viewers' social milieu (Williams, 1986, p. 411).

It is true that research has shown that television has the potential to incite aggressive or antisocial behavior, to create problems resulting from advertising, and to portray characters in ways that foster stereotypes. Despite these potentially negative effects, television has the capability to educate, stimulate, persuade, and inform. Enough is known about how to use television positively to make a difference; however, the research has not led to successful interventions.

There are several reasons for this: the lack of conceptual theory relating findings, poor dissemination of findings, and little support for interventions.

What is most remarkable about the literature on leaming from television is that the concerns haven't changed greatly in 40 years. Although the research questions have become more sophisticated as the medium evolved, the same issues-i.e., violence, commercialism, effect on school achievement-have continued. Yet, while interest in the negative aspects of television remains steady, efforts to increase positive effects seem more sporadic. Interventions are tried and discarded even if successful. The research on prosocial effects is reported and largely ignored. In fact, there is the danger that applying some of these findings could fuel a debate about "political correctness" that could lead to loss of funding. Perhaps the reason there seems to be less progress than warranted after 40 years is that the emphasis on negative effects has been more salient than efforts to ensure positive effects through interventions. Far more attention needs to be paid to the positive effects of television on learning and the potential for overcoming negative effects with these positive effects.

We would like to conclude by stressing the importance of emphasizing the positive through research on interventions, rather than through perpetuation of myths that emphasize negative effects. If this review has revealed anything, it is that the findings on leaming from television are complex and so interrelated that there is a great danger of oversimplification before research can provide adequate answers to sophisticated questions. Other reviews, such as Signorielli's A Sourcebook on Children and Television (1991), have reached similar conclusions. It seems important, therefore, to urge action in areas where research or intervention is both needed and supported, but to caution about sweeping generalizations that create distortions that affect policy. Finally, we hope that by extending this review beyond the usual consideration of either mass media literature or literature from instruction to a review combining both, we have established support for increased attention to design factors and to interventions that affect utilization.

A conscious effort by teachers and parents to use television positively makes a difference. Discussion of programming, for example, enhances leaming through elaboration and clarification. However, most parents who think they discuss television with their children do so only in a minimal way. Tberefore, the belief that parents and teachers guide the use of television is a myth. Generally, they don't. Neither teachers nor parents are given assistance in developing the skills to intervene successfully in the television-viewing experience.

From the research, one can surmise that different variables are important at different points in the life span of viewers. Thus, research on preschool viewers concentrates on mental processing, imagination, and attention span, while research on school age viewers asks questions about television's effect on school achievement and language development. Research with adolescents turns to questions of violence and the learning of roles and prosocial behavior. Adult learners are questioned about attitude change and viewing habits. These foci cause discontinuities in the literature because the same research questions are not asked across all life span periods. Thus, we know very little about the mental processing of adults viewing television or the effect of television on adult achievement. One recommendation for a research agenda would be to ask the same questions about all fife span periods.

In pursuing the same questions across different life span periods, researchers need to ensure that self-reporting instruments measure the same phenomena for each age studied. When data are collected through self-reporting measures such as interviews, questionnaires, and psychological tests, there are limitations to take into account. Self-reporting instruments are used less effectively with young children and those with language disabilities. Moreover, subjects of different ages may interpret questions differently due to comprehension or interest. In addition, respondents may try to present themselves in a positive or socially desirable manner, thus misleading the researcher (Sigelman & Shaffer, 1995).

Which brings us to final conclusions. The need to study research questions through a variety of methodologies appropriate to respective variables and through investigations of interactions among variables is apparent from this review. One can only hope that enough researchers become interested enough, especially those open to interdisciplinary research, to provide some of the answers society, teachers, and parents need.