Right now, here at the Joan Ganz Cooney Center, we are all about STEM – Science, Technology, Engineering and Math. There are only two weeks left to enter the National STEM Video Game Challenge, which we are proud to present along with our partner E-Line Media. But we’re not the only STEM-centric show in town. February 23, as part of National Engineers Week, was ‘Introduce a Girl to Engineering’ day. US News and World Report has a section devoted to STEM coverage and resources.

And on February 14, the Girl Scouts of The USA (a sponsor of the National STEM Video Game Challenge) released Generation STEM: What Girls Say about Science, Technology, Engineering and Math to shed light on how important it is that STEM curriculum attract young girls.

The report consists of a literature review, as well as qualitative (focus group) and quantitative (survey) research with 1,000 girls across the country. The study finds that girls are interested in STEM and aspire to STEM careers, but need further exposure and education about what STEM careers can offer, and how STEM can help girls make a difference in the world.

To find out more about the Girl Scouts report, visit the Generation STEM page.

For more on the National STEM Video Game Challenge, click here.

Join us at DML 2012: Extreme Makeover DML Edition: Rethinking designs for younger and older users | March 2, 2012

Attending the DML 2012 Conference next week in San Francisco?

Don’t miss our panel:
Extreme Makeover DML Edition: Rethinking designs for younger and older users,
Friday, March 2, at 2:30 pm
The Fillmore Room.

Most new consumer technologies are designed for the 18- to 49-year-old set. But when a product strikes success across this market, it inevitably reaches the hands of both younger and older users. To be sure, this spillover has positive implications for children and senior citizens alike, as new technologies offer new opportunities for learning, communication, productivity, and play, regardless of age. However, given the rapid rate at which such penetration occurs, there’s little time to redesign these popular platforms or the media they deliver in ways that best support their “unintended” users’ developmental stages, needs, interests, and lifestyles. Too often, we see children and seniors failing to reap the maximum benefit from new technologies as a result.

This panel will bring together representatives from academia, advocacy, and industry to highlight efforts taking place in these sectors to optimize popular platforms and media for younger and older users, including:

•  – Jeff Makowka, Senior Strategic Advisor in the Thought Leadership Group at AARP, advocates for better design of consumer electronics for users of all ages. His “Design for All” campaign aims to lower barriers to use, raise adoption rates, and generally make things easier to use.
•  – Allison Druin, Director of the Human-Computer Interaction Lab at the University of Maryland, has worked with Google to investigate how its popular search engine is used by children as young as age 7, and influence adjustments to the tool’s interface so that young children can be more successful searchers.
•  – Sirius Thinking’s Cynthia Chiong will share findings from a study that compared how parents and preschoolers read e-books versus how they read print books together. Findings from this research will be used to design e-books that better support learning and conversation between parents and children.
•  – Rafael “Tico” Ballagas of Nokia Research Center worked with the Joan Ganz Cooney Center to design Story Visit, a Skype-based storybook reading device that connects grandparents and grandchildren in real-time co-reading activity.

Panelists will have several minutes to share their experiences redesigning the products mentioned above, and then discuss the important tensions between what we think we knew about design for younger and older audiences, and the reality of digital media use in the lives of these users.

Please join the conversation! Learn from the panelists’ stories and share your own.

Conference information and schedule can be found here: http://dml2012.dmlcentral.net/.

See you in SF,

Lori Takeuchi & Sarah Vaala

Neil Shapiro, of New York City’s WNET13,recently interviewed Joan Ganz Cooney, the founder of the Sesame Street and co-founder of The Joan Ganz Cooney Center, for the Pioneers series.  The Center applies Ms. Ganz Cooney’s ground breaking 40 year old question, “How can emerging media help children learn?” by bring it into the 21^st century digital space.

(If the video doesn’t load, click here.)

Watch Pioneers of Thirteen: Joan Ganz Cooney on PBS. See more from THIRTEEN Specials.

This post was originally published by Gamestar Mechanic Teacher Blog.  For full coverage of the National Stem Video Game Challenge, click here.

Last week, I googled 2012 National STEM Video Game Challenge and read through 15 full pages of search results where people and organizations shared their excitement for this year’s STEM competition.

I also experienced this excitement first hand in Norfolk, VA the first weekend in February as I participated in NSU’s TechFest by giving workshops on game design for the STEM Challenge. One point that seemed to be an “Aha!” moment for the workshopers was the idea that the process of making a game is STEM. For the STEM Challenge, you can submit games about a STEM topic (anything about science, technology, engineering, or math) but you can also submit a game on any topic you want. If I build a game about a group of gummy bears racing each other on tricycles, the content of this game is not directly STEM-related, but the process I went through to make the game is.

A game is a system with a number of complex elements that have to coexist in balance with one another. Controlling the racing gummy bears needs to be just tough enough to keep the player interested, but accessible enough to make the task doable. This means thinking about the length and design of the race track, the skills and characteristics of each bear, the obstacles they will face while racing, and the trials and rewards the player receives. To make a game like this fun, a designer needs to create a hypothesis of how the game will work, model the game system, test it using other players, and iterate on the design to rework the original hypothesis. This game design process looks very similar to the scientific method! Game designers use systems thinking, critical thinking, and problem solving to create any game, even a silly one. (Not to mention, the gummy bear racing game needs to take speed, velocity, and acceleration factors into account – that’s straight up math).

This is why you can enter any kind of game into the National STEM Video Game Challenge. All game design fosters STEM thinking, and a game about a STEM topic just takes that thinking a little deeper into specific STEM subject matter.

Check out these links for info about preparing your students (and yourself!) for the STEM Challenge:

• BrainPOP Webinar with Adam Coccari (scroll down to National STEM Video Game Challenge under January 2012 Archives)
• WXEL Tips on Brainstorming for Game Designers
• 2011 STEM Challenge middle school winner giving advice to 2012 entrants
• 2011 STEM Challenge university winners giving advice to 2012 entrants

I just returned from Kidscreen Summit and its new digital offspring iKids, where I had the rare opportunity to participate in a platform diving competition.

OK – that makes me sound way cooler than I actually am.

By platform I’m referring to software on a mobile device, and by diving I’m referring to launch strategy. But entering the children’s app space can be scarier than plunging headfirst off of a 10-meter plank into a body of water, so the analogy stands.

Regardless, I did moderate a panel called platform diving, which included a well-rounded group representing different sectors of the industry. Our two best in class developers included Layla Masri, who created the SuperWhy and Fancy Nancy Apps, and Brian Burke who we can thank for bringing Pat the Bunny to the iPad. Disney’s Courtnee Westendorf recently made some birds very angry with the uber-successful launch of Where’s My Water. And the wonderful Kevin O’Connor, who heads up children’s content for the increasingly popular Barnes & Noble Nook, rounded out our panel.

Our overall mission was to evaluate mobile platforms and guide kids brand owners on where they should be putting development dollars in the app space. Not surprisingly, there were two main competitors in our little platform diving competition: iOS and Android. Although we had a mere 45 minutes to tackle what could be discussed for hours, below is a summary of where we netted out:

PLATFORM MARKET: What is the current state of the market? Is iOS or Android more popular in the app space?

While a year ago this would have been an easy question, a slew of Android tablets have entered the market making this an increasingly difficult debate. There are numerous metrics you can use to compare the two platforms, and third party estimates are confusing this already difficult comparison. Android is activating more units, but Apple has more devices in the field. Android overtook iOS in downloads, but iOS apps are more profitable. Android is more popular with developers but the Apple devices win with kids. So, which is more popular? Well, the short answer is it depends how you define popular.
Ø And the winner is … tie.

PLATFORM DIFFERENCES: What are the key differences between the platforms, and what does a brand owner need to consider?

Not surprisingly, the key consideration raised by panelists was Android’s diversity and fragmentation as compared to iOS, which can be both advantageous and simultaneously present extraordinary difficulties. Android offers multiple hardware platforms, which come with multiple capabilities, limitations, and marketplaces. Although Android presents more options and flexibility, development on Android can be a lot more frustrating and costly, so unless you have a niche product that you want to target to a specific Android device (such as the Nook), panelists agreed that iOS makes for an easier start.
Ø And the winner is… iOS.

PROFITABILITY: What kinds of apps are most profitable? Are there differences between the platforms in terms of profitability?

Due to the aforementioned fragmentation, Android costs far more to develop/QA for than iOS, and anecdotally Apple’s customers seem to be willing to spend more on a whole. As a result, developers across the board are currently more profitable on Apple. That being said, as I’ve discussed before (see our new iLearn Report), profitability in the children’s app space is a huge issue, and eBooks seem to be able to thrive at higher price points while being simultaneously less expensive to develop.
Ø And the winner is … eBooks on either platform.

MARKETING & MAINTENANCE: How does a brand owner market in the app space, and is this easier on one of the platforms?

You can develop a great app, but if no one knows about it that’s not going to matter. There are numerous marketing strategies, which I hope to blog about in the coming weeks, but in terms of our platform diving, there was consensus amongst panelists. You can’t rely on Apple (or Google) to market for you. On either platform it is fundamentally important to market and update your app, and take on that responsibility as part of your launch plan (and budget).
Ø And the winner is … Tie.

THE OVERALL WINNER: As a final question, I asked panelists the following question: If you owned a kids brand and had limited funds to start with development for only one mobile platform, which would it be and why? Their answers: iOS, iOS, Android for Nook (one guess who gave that answer), and iOS.

Well, there you have it. I think these answers actually provide a nice perspective on the market for children’s apps. The truth is, it’s easier to dive into iOS, and the Apple devices are currently most popular with kids, so The App Store is a reasonable place to start. However, if your app lends itself nicely to a specific device that operates on the Android platform, it can be easier to differentiate within one specific market. And remember, the pace of change in this space is unprecedented, so sometimes the best you can do is close your eyes and jump.

ØAnd the ultimate winner is… iOS. For now.

 This post was originally submitted to Edutopia and is reprinted with their permission.

Mixed reactions to children’s e-books and the digitization of story time

The news media and blogosphere were abuzz last month with the news that Apple is “reinventing the textbook” through the introduction of digital textbooks available for the iPad. With the announcement has come a myriad of opinions and speculations regarding the possible repercussions of Apple’s textbook reinvention for schools and for children’s learning.Many celebrate the availability of electronic textbooks for the classroom, surmising that their interactivity will make textbook content more engaging for students, their reduced cost compared to print textbooks will ease the financial burden on school budgets, and their format will literally lighten a student’s load and take less of a toll on the environment.Others, however, decry this move by Apple. They fear the possible end to traditional print books all-together, that too much control over our children’s education will be in the hands of Apple, that outfitting each student with an iPad and requisite IT support will create additional financial burdens on school budgets, and that existing access gaps may be widened when some schools cannot afford the technology. 

The debate over what Apple’s electronic textbooks will mean for our formal education system comes at a time when we have not yet determined what tablet technology and the availability of electronic books (or “e-books”) can mean for children’s learning at home and other informal learning environments.  Decades of research indicate a link between reading in the home and children’s literacy skill development. What is not yet known is whether that link may take a different shape depending on the medium of the books that are read. 

Though e-books have been available for children to read on computers for some time, they are receiving quite a bit of attention recently due to the development of new, more mobile platforms on which to view them. Survey research from Pew Research Center indicates that the number of American adults who own a tablet or e-book reader nearly doubled this past holiday season, rising from an estimated 10% of the population in December to 19% in January. Still, parent reactions to children’s e-books, expressed through news media and blogs, seem to mirror the range of opinions regarding electronic textbooks: some parents love them while others adamantly keep their children away.

At the Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop, we are investigating how preschool-age (3-5) children and parents read e-books together and parental perceptions of e-books in their children’s literacy development.  Our research consists of three separate but interrelated studies, all exploratory.  Our first study was inspired by and modeled after research conducted by Julia Parish-Morris and her colleagues, who compared parent-child pairs read traditional print storybooks with pairs that read e-books on electronic console devices (i.e., Fisher Price).  We conducted a similar comparison study, but observed our parent-child pairs as they read an e-book on an iPad as well as a print book.  We observed their interactions with each other and with each book, and asked each party to describe their experiences and preferences.

Curious to learn more about the various considerations that may underlie families’ selection of books across platforms, we designed a second study in which we asked parents and their preschool-age children to select a print book or e-book to read together from an assortment of options. Again, we observed these pairs as they negotiated their book choices, and interviewed each party about the features and characteristics of the books that influenced their selections. Among the families we observed and interviewed, we found that book selection was understood as a valuable tool in developing specific interests and knowledge, especially science topics such as space, weather, or dinosaurs. In our sample, the interests cultivated among families tended to fall into three categories, which we have described as parent-driven interests, kid-driven interests, and parent-led interests. The two parent categories reflect varying intensities of involvement and collaboration with children in identifying and following interests through book selection, while kid-driven interests refer to topics that kids themselves identify as important, thus motivating reading on that topic.  Each type of selection process represented a different entry point into co-reading and topic exploration for the families. 

All of the insights and questions that have arisen from our first two e-book studies have led to the third branch of this research, which we are launching today. This study – an online survey for parents with children between the ages of 2 and 6 years – seeks to explore parents’ perceptions and use of e-books and traditional books with their young children.

If you are a parent of a 2- to -6-year-old and would like to participate in this survey, please visit the JGCC parent survey site.  We would be thrilled to be able to incorporate insights gained from parents who follow our blog.  Please feel free also to direct any other interested parents to our website to be included in our survey.  Our goal is to include as many parents (and different perspectives) as possible! 

We plan to close the survey later this Spring, and will write another post discussing our survey findings this Summer.Meanwhile, if you are interested in learning more about the Cooney Center’s e-book line of research, click here.

In 2011, The Cooney Center formed six action teams, based on geographical location.  The teams were charged with building promising practices and scalable models of the ways that media, and particularly digital media, can promote children’s learning in environments outside of school. These teams were an integral part of the Learning From Hollywood Forum where they had the opportunity to network with industry and policy leaders across media, technology, education and philanthropy, and where each team walked away with hard deliverables to this mission.  The After-School Corporation is part of a New York City Action Team, along with the Hive Learning Network and the New York Community Trust. Since the Forum, the team is collaborating on a New York City Hackasaurus project

Drawing on ideas shared by many of the Action Teams, The After-School Corporation convened a forum this past summer in New York City to discuss how schools and community organizations could leverage their partnerships to expand digital learning into the country’s vast network of after-school programs, summer camps and expanded learning time schools. The United States has invested in building a national infrastructure of these organizations in the past two decades, as evidenced by statewide and citywide after-school networks  all across the country and a workforce of about 1 million after-school educators. It’s time to ensure that as schools find ways to use technoloogy effectively to advance learning, so do youth-serving organizations that provide informal learning opportunities to millions of kids beyond traditional school hours.In New York, some of the most groundbreaking work in digital learning is being led by such organizations, many of them members of the HIVE Learning Network NYC, a partner in the New York City Action Team.

But many traditional youth-serving organizations are on the sidelines, interested but lacking infrastructure, tools or staff training. TASC Has published a white paper and posted this video in which we make a case for education leaders to actively work with these organizations to close the digital divide. This is one way to make sure that in the movement to expand learning with technology, the poorest kids don’t get left behind once again.

We’d love to hear your feedback and thoughts on next steps.

Resources:

Where the Kids Are: Digital Learning in Class and Beyond. Expanded learning time schools, after-school and summer programs offer the ideal time, places and conditions to equalize and advance technology-enabled learning.

Kidscreen Summit, with 1,500 delegates representing 800 companies and 43 countries, is part conference, summit, networking event, exhibition and trade show.  With every major children’s media industry player (and everyone who very much wants to be a major player) under one roof, pre-conference iKids and Kidscreen delivered a number of highlights, recurring themes and critical questions about the past, present and future of children and digital media.  Trying to toggle between industry and academic lenses, I’ve summarized a few key issues raised below:

Transmedia “_____.”  At iKids, Stacey Matthias, co-CEO of Insight Strategy Group, presented qualitative research from depth interviews conducted with a small sample of kids (aged 7-14, across 8 US states) on how they would define “transmedia” (abridged version PDF available here.)  Two notable points from Matthias’ presentation:

1. Developmental differences in how children ages 7, 10 and 13 described how their experiences with character-driven narratives across different media story worlds “helped them do the work of growing up,” as Matthias described
2. That none of the children they interviewed entered the story world of their favorite media property through that franchise’s original media (e.g. Harry Potter, not through the books or even the movies, but through Lego Harry Potter)

In relation to the work I am doing with my advisor, Prof. Henry Jenkins, and Erin Reilly, Managing Director of the Annenberg Innovation Lab, I’d caution that if “transmedia” in its most basic sense means “across media,” then we need to be more specific about what “transmedia” means in very different mediated contexts.  Matthias’ presentation primarily focused on children’s “transmedia” as branding and storytelling, but understandably less so (given the setting) on transmedia’s potential applications as learning, ritual, performance or activism (such as the work of the Harry Potter Alliance).

Non-digital game app inspirations.  David Kleeman moderated a “hypothetical app” creation challenge between Andy Russell of Launchpad Toys, Jason Krogh of zinc Roe Design, Carla Fisher and Anne Richards of No Crusts Interactive and Juliet Tzabar of Plug-in Media.  David’s rules were that the app had to 1) Be targeted to 5-8 year-olds, 2) Promote “pass back and forth” between children and caregivers, and 3) Use as many possible affordances of smart phone and tablet computers.

The result was a number of apps with non-digital counterparts.  One type of app was the digital version of the “exquisite corpse.” “Le cadavre exquis” was a parlor game favored by French Surrealists, involving players making a contribution to the whole (be it an image or set of worlds) without having knowledge of anyone else’s contributions.  This “pass along” game involves one person writing or drawing on a piece of paper, folding that paper over to hide all but one piece of their creation, and then passing it along for the next person to add, fold, and pass along again.  The completed “corpse” (revealed when the paper is unfolded) can be the basis for collective creation and creative communication, regardless of language.  No Crusts also drew inspiration from analog games like Telephone, and the panel discussed the possibility of incorporating non-digital elements from improvisational theater games with their “Yes, And” philosophy.

One area into which the panel did not get a chance to dig deeper was the distinct qualities that separate the physical folding and unfolding of paper from the “metaphorical” folding and unfolding of an app (e.g. a child’s fine motor and metacognitive skills needed to choose and fold a select portion of their drawing to pass along.)  It is differences such as this that leads me to another note of caution for fellow children’s media researchers.  Just because one has knowledge of child development, and even how children learn from pseudo-interactive television, does not necessarily apply whole cloth to an understanding of how children learn from apps, nor how to research and design user interfaces (UI) and user experiences (UX) for this age group.  Nor, on top of that, how to account for cultural differences in child development.  As David Kleeman stated at the conclusion of the panel (and I apologize for paraphrasing), “The more functionality there is in these devices, the harder it is to separate what’s possible/fun/cool from necessary/usable.”

Monetizing “digital natives” rhetoric. “Co-creation” with young “digitally native” media audiences is a rather warm and fuzzy notion that was shared over the course of the conference, but there needs to be more open and honest discussions about the ethical implications of monetizing crowd sourced user generated content from kids under 13, as well as the serious social, economic and educational consequences for children across the globe who do not fit the ideal consumer profile.  Under the umbrella of what counts as “content,” there’s more than just posting YouTube videos.  Do children’s anonymous click-through data, collected and delivered to advertisers, count as “user generated content” too?  “Gamifying creativity” could end up, and perhaps already is, what Georgia Tech games rhetoric scholar Ian Bogost calls “exploitationware.”  Surely, an understanding of children’s media literacy in the 21^st century involves a critical understanding of what goes on under the mostly-opaque hood of our increasingly networked society, such as how Wikipedia pages get edited, how data is collected based on each badge-like goal obtained on a website, and how electronics get made in China.

More youth in the US may be viewing video on YouTube (as noted in research presented by Dubit Research at iKids), but that doesn’t mean by virtue of the year they were born that all these young people have the opportunities (e.g. free time to spend on the Internet, informal mentorships) to gain the cultural capital, knowledge and social skills to participate, learn and engage in their world.  Young people can find incredibly innovative ways to overcome some of these inequalities, but in order to learn more about these strategies, the first step is to stop pretending that all kids have, or even will one day soon have, iPads both at home and at school.

Readers, do you have any thoughts, comments or feedback you’d like to share below?

Meryl Alper is a Ph.D. student in Communication at the Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism at the University of Southern California, as well as a Research Assistant at the Cooney Center-partner USC Annenberg Innovation Lab.  She attended the iKids Conference and Kidscreen Summit, the largest annual children’s entertainment industry event in the world, in NYC on February 6-10.  Meryl shares some of her thoughts on the event here (and the original post appears on her blog, teething on tech).

Remember the old Bert and Ernie sketch, where Ernie, very interested in the “Man Bites Dog” article, continually reads over Bert’s shoulder? This disrupts the taller Muppet’s attempt to finish coverage of the long-awaited national pigeon show. The sketch ends with Bert suggesting they share the paper, Ernie agreeing and then ripping the paper in half, and Bert finally being driven to read over Ernie’s shoulder to finish his article.

Over 80 people gathered on a rainy Monday night (January 23, 2012) to discuss how Bert’s frustrating experience does not have to be the norm when two people view the same media outlet. A panel of experts on design and content, directed at an audience of media producers, was convened by the Joan Ganz Cooney Center and Women in Children’s Media to discuss how young children, ages 0-11, and their influencers, from siblings to caregivers to teachers, can view media together for education and play – without resorting to Ernie’s Solomon-esque solution.

The discussion was framed by The New Coviewing: Designing for Learning through Joint Media Engagement, a recent publication of the Cooney Center which features case studies on bringing families together around newer media and emerging technology. Also included in the publication was a design guide offering essential advice to producers interested in creating content that drives meaningful conversation and enjoyment

Sitting on the panel were:

• Moderator: Sarah Wallendjack, Producer, Out of the Blue; President, Women in Children’s Media (WiCM)
• Karen Halpenny– Vice President of WiCM
• Mindy Brooks, Director of Education and Research, Sesame Workshop
• Shelley Pasnik, Director of The Center for Children and Technology, Education Development Center
• Heather Tilert, Emmy-Nominated Television Producer, Filmmaker, Writer, Director, Voice Over Director and Singer/Songwriter
• Erica Branch-Ridley, Assistant VP of Platform Innovations, Sesame Workshop & Supervising Producer of Electric Company Broadband

Following are key points from the evening’s panelists regarding the cultivation of Joint Media Engagement, as well as some of the resources cited by the Panel:

1. Talk to the people you want to reach from the primary audience of children to all of their influencers that may interact with the content and media.
2. Test your assumptions. “An audience will always shed new light,” Shelley Pasnik stated. “When there is intergenerational play, we carry forward all sorts of assumptions about our personal experiences, what the experiences of our families are – we don’t necessarily cross these boundaries of generation, culture or just our own personal experiences.”
3. Whenever possible, combine “both sides of the fence.” Mindy Brooks recognized this need for collusion between research and production.She and Erica Branch Ridley spoke on the production of Electric Racer, a digital companion to the show The Electric Company that is designed for a child to play with a caregiver or teacher and supports the educational goals of the show. Production of the game, according to Brooks, was an iterative process of research combined testing and reviewing among many test groups.According to Pasnik, another key component of research is awareness of the audience, specifically in the way children interact with a story without others around.“Mine the private speech – speech that doesn’t have any communicative intent – of game players.What is the experience of young children when they are talking to themselves? – How do they relate to characters, the story and the narrative?”
4. Design for the enjoyment of all audiences. Brooks and Branch Ridley discussed how in the production of Electric Racer, they realized that the design needed to enhance participation among both players and create less conflict. “The problem,” said Branch Ridley, “was making a game that does not cultivate a parent /child struggle.If the child is focused on the game and the parent is focused on the child, you lose some of the opportunity for dialogue. “Heather Tilert talked of the subtle ways children’s media could be palatable for adults. As important as verbal triggers for amusement, music can create mutual enjoyment for kids and adults. “We were careful to use the highest quality music and voice over talent,” to appeal to children and trigger recognition in, or engage, parents, she explained.
5. Be true to your audience.
   Both Wallendjack and Tilert expressed that while they wished all media was consumed in a JME setting, = as producers they had to recognize that the primary audience was children, and these children were not always engaged in coviewing.“Broadcasters also need to consider that children may be viewing by themselves,” noted Tilert, who stressed caution regarding the introduction of material that might be scary or isolating for a child watching alone. “The child as viewer needed to be protected first in terms of production, and producers can’t assume that there is someone to mediate content”.
6. Consider the nature of the technology and engagement. Touch devices, like iPads and such are designed in many ways for primary users.While it is challenging to engage multiple people with them, it is definitely doable. The panelist advised to be very cognitive about what challenge you’re up against, but also make that experience so incredibly engaging that the users wants to pull in someone else to play with.Branch-Ridley, one of the more digitally inclined panelists, used a birthday party vignette to illustrate this point.Having thrown a coed sleepover for her 8-year-old twins, she thought that the best way to entertain the troops was with board games, pizza and games likes charades. She implemented a handheld game ban. What this ban resulted in was boys on one side, girls on the other.It was only when she lifted the restriction did the kids come together to play, literally meeting in the middle of the room over the handheld.
7. Don’t forget the older sibling. Several panelists gave examples of an older siblings as mentors on games ranging from Angry Birds to Electric Racer. Producers are trying to promote multiple relationships in the engagement – being alone, being with siblings and being with parents are all considered in the research as no single way of coviewing has been proven better.
8. Consider the notion of previous and next. Pasnik recommended looking at tried and true media as a bridge to emerging media.As an example, teachers may not have access to the latest technology, but have adopted a ‘bring your own device’ attitude, using other tech as bridges – record player, cassette player– to experimenting with technology.
9. Develop cross platform presentations. Consider taking the characters or shows kids like and bring them into the classrooms. This creates an ecology of how an experience is situated within a set of experiences – from classroom, to television and print, to things digitally or/and physically interactive.Kids don’t think in terms of sequestered time – screen time vs. crayon time – but are much more organic in their bridging among media, providing a way to create a rich experience with modality and the repetition that young children need.

The New Coviewing: Designing for Learning through Joint Media Engagement was co-authored by Lori Takeuchi, Director of Research for the JGCC and Reed Stevens, Professor of the Learning Sciences at Northwestern University. The report connects the work that the Cooney Center had done previously on coviewing with the work Stevens had done on JME into one guide for producers and researchers to use in developing cross platform children’s media. The panel can be viewed in its entirety on our YouTube channel.

The full panel can be viewed on our YouTube channel.

Media and Reports Cited/Lauded during the discussion:

Electric Racer – a digital companion to the show The Electric Company that is designed for a child to play with a caregiver or teacher and supports the educational goals of the show.
Toontastic – A digital source which allows children to creatively develop critical thinking and narrative skills by creating a cartoon.This game, designed in partnership with Stanford’s Graduate School of Education
Zeum: San Francisco’s Children’s Museum comes with a guide for parents.
Prankster Planet – A PBS game with a STEM-based curriculum, accessible by English and Spanish speakers.
Mythbusters – a television show and website for those tween to adulthood, with a STEM-based content that has over 2 million viewers per episode.
In-Game, In-Room, In-World: Reconnecting Video Game Play to the Rest of Kids’ Lives Reed Stevens, coauthor of The New Coviewing, reporting on children and video games
Publications from The Center for Children and Technology

Editor’s Note: Want to join the Joan Ganz Cooney Center team? Apply to be the 2016-2017 Cooney Center Fellow! We are accepting fellowship applications now through April 4, 2016.

We’ve all been there many times: “go around the table and introduce yourselves.”  There are certain times in our lives when this happens at an extremely frequent rate: the first weeks of college and when we start a new job being two of the most popular.

For a new job as a research scientist, this introduction is expected to include three things: where you went to college/your major, where you went to graduate school/your degree program, and where you worked just before your current research position (if different from graduate school).  I am one of the lucky ones for whom this formality leads to a memorable opening: “Prior to coming to ETS, I was a Research Fellow at the Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop.”I estimate that since my arrival here in September, I’ve said this sentence over twenty times and each time received at least one (usually more) “cool,” “neat” or other such favorable responses. Everyone immediately wants to know what I did (see my blog entry ) and whether I’ve met any Muppets (I have). 

Since the topic of this blog is about life after my fellowship, I am proud to say that once you are part of the Cooney Center team, you can never stray too far; and while I may not arrive at 1900 Broadway every day, I do consider myself to be a lifelong Cooney fellow.  I continue to always stay on top of the latest innovations in digital media and try to look at the potential impact on education.  Because of this, I’ve met many people in various departments, such as Business Innovation and Growth (BIG) and the new Center for Advanced Technologies and Neuroscience (the former actually leading me to a trip back to the JGCC in two weeks), at ETS that I would never have otherwise met.  My work with the National STEM Video Game Challenge led me to become the lead scientist for a new research project that will be announced next month and the report that I co-authored while a Fellow, Take a Giant Step, evolved into an invitation for me to serve on the planning committee for a new conference on Kindergarten readiness.

The walls of ETS may not be painted as colorfully as what I was used to at Sesame Workshop, but the interest in new media and learning through media is just as strong. While my primary role here is as an expert in mathematics education, my stamp as a lifelong Cooney Fellow shows everyone that I might just be a little bit more.  It also gives me a killer opening line.

Ed’s note – if you are interested in joining the Cooney Center as a Research Fellow, applications are being accepted through: click here.

Gabrielle Cayton-Hodges is an Associate Research Scientist in the Cognitive and Learning Sciences Group at Educational Testing Service (ETS).  Her daughter’s favorite Muppet is Count von Count.