In Jackson, Mississippi, researchers visited a family of seven (including a niece and nephew), headed by a stay-at-home mom in her 20s. During the visit, the children sat around the mom as she described their latest learning activities, including 1-on-1 homework time and making “slime.” One activity—planting a seed in the yard in front of their apartment building—garnered a lot of excitement. Here’s how the mom described her family’s experience.

“[My son] wanted to know, ‘How did that tree get in the ground?’ … What I did was, like, when I was in school with my teacher, we grew a plant. So that’s what we’re doing in my house now, growing a plant, so he can see. I told him it wouldn’t get as big as the trees are, but he could see it grow.

I Googled ‘How to plant a plant’… to make sure that I was doing it right. I hadn’t done it in a while, so I wanted to make sure it would sprout. … Google always leads you to YouTube. So we looked at a video showing us how different people started planting different types of things, and how to take care of them. … I wanted to make sure that it was getting everything that it needed.”

Science-related media have the potential to engage and support families in exploring science together, but are families using media for this purpose? A new study examined the ways that families think about and engage young children in science, and how they use science-related media to support these efforts. The study was conducted by EDC and SRI International and commissioned by the U.S. Department of Education’s Ready To Learn initiative, led by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and PBS. It included a nationally-representative survey of over 1,400 parents and caregivers of 3- to 6-year-old children, and interviews with 65 parents.

Findings from the survey suggest that most parents feel responsible for helping their children learn, and that they do so daily. Most parents feel very confident helping their young children learn social and behavioral skills, math, and literacy. But only about half of parents—and even fewer low-income parents—feel very confident helping their children learn science.

Not only are parents less likely to be very confident in doing science with their children, they are also less likely to do science with their children daily, compared to other skills. When asked about learning activities they do with their children, parents were most likely to report that they read, involve their children in chores, and work on math concepts with their children every day; far fewer parents report doing science learning activities daily. Many parents, especially low-income parents, say that more ideas and resources would help them to do more science with their children.

Media could fill that need. Close to two-thirds of parents reported that their child had watched science-related TV shows or videos weekly or more often in the past month, and about half of parents said their children played science-related apps or video games about science weekly or more often.

Based on these findings, we offer some suggestions for media producers—and others who develop resources for families—to help families with young children explore science together.

Finding: Fewer parents are confident in their ability to help children learn science, compared with literacy, math, and social skills.

If families think science is hard, they may not do it. We know from prior research that media can play a role in helping parents support their young children’s learning—especially for parents who are less confident about their abilities to help their children. Here are three ways media can help overcome this confidence barrier.

• Show that science is fun. For example, playfully pushing a cart down a hill or joyfully banging on pots and pans to see which ones are louder when hit with a wooden spoon.
• Explore, don’t answer. Children ask a lot of science questions, and adults may feel intimidated when they can’t answer them. For example, parents in our study described their children asking questions such as, “Why does the rain fall down instead of up?” and “Do trees breathe?” Media can flip the script by showing adults and children exploring together—observing, collecting data, and sharing their ideas about the how and why of things. It is important for parents to see that science learning is not about providing answers; it’s about discovering together.
• Provide relatable family science role models. Families engaged in science activities in TV shows and games should represent the racial, ethnic, cultural, and geographic diversity of the target audience. For example, not all families may be able to collect insects in their backyards, but nature can be found in a single tree, or a patch of dirt by the sidewalk.

Findings: Nine out of ten parents report doing learning activities with their children daily. About half of parents report doing science-related activities with their children daily. Parents indicated that easy-to-do ideas for science activities would help them do more science.

Media can model or encourage everyday ways to engage children in science. Media can also remind families that they probably already do science without realizing it.

• Show that science is everywhere. Science doesn’t require special supplies or set-up. Media can show characters listening for birds while running errands, building with empty cartons and containers, or exploring rolling and sliding with a piece of cardboard and different-shaped household objects.

Finding: Most parents do not feel that their child is learning science from media.

Our interview data suggest that parents may not always recognize the educational value of science media. Clear science content may help parents recognize and support what their children are learning. Here are three research-based strategies.

• Begin with a preview of the science activities and concepts featured in the episode (an advance organizer). For example, “Today we’re building things. We will see what makes some things stable, and some things wobbly.” This introduction can help children and parents focus on the educational content. Similarly, end with a wrap-up of what the characters did and found out related to the science content.
• Integrate science content into the narrative, rather than saving it for interstitials. This approach helps parents and children to engage in the science content throughout the episode. It also helps families realize that they naturally experience science as part of life, much like the characters do.
• Raise the same science concepts in different ways, using multiple examples throughout the episode or game. Use a variety of visuals, sound, spoken language, print text, and/or other symbolic representations to reinforce concepts. For example, an episode about habitats could include pictures of a habitat, language that describes the habitat, and text or symbols to represent different animals or habitats.

Finding: About 30% of parents do not talk to their child about connections between science media and science in everyday life.

Media can support these conversations by providing discussion prompts for parents and children to use during or after the episode or game. Here are three tips for writing discussion prompts.

• Keep conversations open-ended. Focus on topics that are interesting to children, rather than on specific facts. For example, identify each family member’s favorite colors on objects around you.
• Encourage children to relate content to something else they have done or observed, since prior knowledge improves children’s comprehension. For example, “That episode/game was about plants. What plants do we see around where we live?”
• Launch related explorations in the real world. For example, a prompt might state, “This episode/game was about how the parts of a plant help it grow. Let’s find (or draw) a plant and look for its different parts.”

Media have a strong potential to support science learning at home. Families are already using science media, although they may not consider its educational value. If crafted intentionally, science media can engage parents in co-learning with their children, boost parents’ confidence in doing science, and suggest ways to continue learning off-screen.

 

 

Claire Christensen is an education researcher at SRI International in the Center for Learning and Development. Her research focuses on the use of educational media to promote STEM and social-emotional learning in young children. She is particularly interested in the features of educational media that support learning. She earned her Ph.D. In community and prevention research from the University of Illinois at Chicago.

Megan Silander is a researcher at the Education Development Center’s Center for Children and Technology. She conducts research on the use of digital tools and media to increase capacity to support children’s learning, both in and out of school. Her recent research has focused particularly on under-resourced families’ use of media and technology to support their children’s learning in the home, including research conducted for the US Department of Education’s CPB-PBS Ready To Learn initiative. Megan holds a Ph.D. in education policy from Teachers College, Columbia University.

Tiffany Maxon is a researcher at the Education Development Center’s Center for Children and Technology. She has a strong interest in media’s capacity to educate young children and to influence their lives, especially through nationally and internationally disseminated properties. Tiffany earned her Master of Education in Human Development and Psychology from the Harvard Graduate School of Education, and received dual Bachelor of Arts degrees in Cinema & Media Studies and East Asian Languages & Civilizations from the University of Chicago.

Jaime Gutierrez is a researcher at the Education Development Center’s Center for Children and Technology in New York, NY. He has a deep knowledge of early childhood learning through his experiences teaching young children. He has worked in a variety of early childhood education settings, focusing on children aged three to seven. His main research interests are in study design and implementation, qualitative research, STEM education, and the use of technology as a tool to support learning for young children and adults, with a focus on working with families and educators in low-income communities.

Promoting early learning through the support and empowerment of families—especially those who are under-resourced—has become an imperative for education leaders nationwide. In 2014, New America’s Learning Technologies project in the Education Policy program published Envisioning a Digital Age Architecture for Early Education to help leaders visualize success in this media-infused environment. Since then, New America and the Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop have joined forces to document initiatives that use technology to connect with vulnerable families and improve educational outcomes.

Program leaders are using interactive tools such as on-demand video and text messaging to inspire and reassure parents, to share learning materials between formal and informal settings, and to bring parents closer to their children’s learning. Some communities are also taking steps to prepare educators as media mentors to help families and children be choosy about media and learn how to use technology for learning.

But so far, these efforts are sporadic and fragile. Very few are fully sustainable, proven, or ready to scale up. Leaders need a plan, using relevant resources. New America and the Joan Ganz Cooney Center have developed this interactive toolkit, which is a compilation of resources from early learning and family engagement organizations, that is designed to help inform community leaders’ thinking as they develop and improve new and existing programs.

In 2017, New America and the Joan Ganz Cooney Center published How to Bring Early Learning and Family Engagement to the Digital Age: An Action Agenda for City and Community Leaders, which detailed four steps to build more advanced systems for family engagement and early learning. More information on these steps can be found in this interactive toolkit.

In addition to the interactive toolkit for community leaders, New America and the Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop have developed a project called Integrating Technology in Early Literacy (InTEL), which collected information through two surveys. The aim is to create data visualization tools that highlight early learning and family engagement programs in the United States that have integrated technology to meet the needs of young children and families. Survey results from 2016 resulted in a published report and accompanying data visualization tools, including interactive maps. We conducted a second survey two years later, and the results and analysis are published here.

The InTEL project began as a way to think about how programs around the U.S. were tackling the question of how young children learn language and literacy skills through family engagement programs in the Digital Age. In the second iteration, the scope of the project expanded to include other content areas, such as early science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM), recognizing the research that shows that developing early math skills can advance the development of language and literacy. The data visualization tools found in InTEL 2016 and InTEL 2018 show where innovative programs are located, how those programs are designed, and what evidence of impact the programs were able to share with our research team.

In the 2018 InTEL map, we profile 40 programs. Sixty-eight percent of the programs did not provide any evidence of impact through our survey. Seventy percent of programs identified themselves as family engagement programs. All of the programs were funded through a combination of sources, such as federal dollars, state dollars, and philanthropy. Finally, in this dataset, the most popular software used were websites, apps, and online videos.

In the 2018 InTEL map, 40 programs were profiled. (There were 37 programs profiled in 2016.) We sorted programs by their evidence of impact, type, languages, ages served, number of children served, and technology used.

Seventy percent of the programs did not provide any evidence of impact through our survey.  Seventy percent of programs identified themselves as family engagement programs. All of the programs were funded through a combination of sources, such as federal dollars, state dollars, and philanthropy.

In InTEL 2018, the technology was organized into two categories: device and software. In this dataset, the most popular software used were websites, apps, and online videos. The most popular devices are tablets, smartphones, and laptop or desktop computers.

Twenty-eight (70 percent) of the programs on the map were rated as having no evidence, and six were rated developing.  Three were rated promising and another three were categorized as strong. These programs provided evidence to inform these ratings. Information on specific research studies and reports is documented in each of the program profiles. This lack of evidence spotlights an area of enormous challenge for program and community leaders, but also an opportunity for additional investment and improvement.  

There are 40 programs on the map. Over half of the programs (58.5 percent) started after 2010. The majority of the programs (28) provide parent education or family support. Other programs (18) have school- or center-based initiatives. Eighteen programs use public media partnerships, and another 17 are geared toward professional learning for educators. Fifteen programs are connected to a museum, library, or community center. Two are health care initiatives and two are a part of an afterschool program.

The various approaches in the dataset show the many options that communities can use to engage young children and their families. In many cases, the aim is to build an ecosystem of support so children can grow up to be learners who are adept at using and understanding many different resources. Librarians, family engagement coordinators, home visitors, pediatricians, early childhood educators, and other professionals who interact with young children all can help families learn about the best ways to promote their children’s healthy development.

Explore the maps and interactive toolkit »

In May, Maayan Eldar and Ashley Mannetta discussed Me: A Kid’s Diary by Tinybop at the International Communication Association Conference in Prague. The app encourages empathy and self-reflection by inviting children to respond to a series of questions about themselves and their lives with drawings, photos, texts, or recordings. We invited them to tell us more how user-testing influences the design of an app, and what the data they have begun to analyze reveals.

 

Last year, Tinybop launched an app called Me: A Kid’s Diary. Tinybop’s mission is to inspire and nurture children’s curiosity, creativity, and love of learning through playful, interactive, educational products and experiences. In creating our products, we also think a lot about how to teach empathy. We believe it’s an important skill and practice that adults can help children develop from a very young age. 

This app was in part inspired by research around social emotional development and empathy—specifically, research that suggests that self-reflection and contemplating others’ internal lives develop empathy. In encouraging children to recognize and label their own emotions and perspectives, we can help them begin to do the same for others. We wanted Me to encourage children to do just that. Our product and research term worked closely together to build an app that would promote children to study themselves, their family, and their friends. The goal was to make these practices engaging for children.

When we began work on Me, we knew that we wanted it to allow children to do two things: create avatars (of themselves, friends, family members, or pets) and answer prompts (about themselves, friends, family members, or pets). But how would those activities be designed? To begin, we needed to consult the children who might use our app.

At Tinybop, we always playtest with children. Through playtesting, we learn what children take away from the interactions, what excites them, what confuses them. With Me, our goal was to engage children in self-reflection—to make questions and prompts that they’d want to answer and that would encourage them to be self-reflective. In all playtesting, we measure engagement to see how we’re doing. With this particular app, we measured engagement as willingness to answer prompts.

For Me, we wanted children to be able to answer hundreds of prompts to create a “map” of their lives. It was important that these prompts inspire children to think about themselves —their preferences, their habits, and the people in their lives. For example, they might be asked be asked something like, “This is what I do before bed” or “This is one word my best friend would use to describe me”. 

To determine what types of prompts were most engaging for children, we conducted a study with 20 participants ranging from ages 7 and 12 from diverse backgrounds. The study was small by necessity. Tinybop spends about six months on each app before its release. As researchers, we work with children to inform our designs and to generate hypotheses to test later, once an app has launched and a larger data set is available.

The children were asked to sort potential prompts into two groups: questions they would answer and those they would not. While children sorted, we asked them to explain in words why they liked or did not like each prompt.

We found that children dismissed prompts that were “too personal”. They didn’t want to answer prompts like “This is what I wish my teacher knew” or “This makes me feel nervous,” possibly because these types of questions reveal something about their private lives. Children were also less interested in answering prompts that solicited generalizations, like “This sums up my life” or “This is my life story.” These more open-ended questions may have been overwhelming to children or may have seemed more difficult to answer.

Children were most interested in answering prompts like “This is what my Dad is afraid of” or “This is my favorite shirt.” This third group of prompts solicited concrete observations. As children said they would like to answer these prompts, we hoped that these prompts would be engaging in our app. That said, since our participant pool was small, we wanted to see if the observations we found held true with a larger audience after launching the app.

With each of our apps, we collect data to help us improve user experience. As the data from Me poured in, we used it to assess whether the patterns we saw in our play testing among children held at a large scale—specifically, we wanted to see if children were engaging more with prompts that solicited concrete observations and less with prompts that solicited generalizations or overly “personal” responses. We could then use this information to decide which questions to include in future updates to the app.

We gathered data from over 30,000 users from over 140 countries. Engagement was measured by looking at which prompts were answered the most in proportion to the number of times they were opened.

We were excited to find that some of our play-testing observations held true across thousands of users around the world. On average, children answered about 60% of questions they saw in the app. Children answered concrete questions 70% of the time, which was 10% more than average! “General” questions were only answered 56% of the time. Interestingly, “personal” questions were answered about as often as the average. Although children did not explicitly indicate this, they may have been concerned about privacy—that a parent, teacher or friend might read their response.

This analysis gave us important insight into what kinds of questions resonated with children using the app. Specifically, we knew that in future updates to this app, we would want to include more concrete, specific prompts and less general and personal ones. The data does have its limitations and affords room for further exploration. We can’t collect information about age, for example, due to children’s online privacy regulations, and so we were not able to see if children’s behavior changes as they grow.

Other trends emerged. We categorize the prompts in Me by topic. There are prompts about family, friends, animals, school, home, happiness, fear, anger, sadness, and disgust. We expected that some categories might be more engaging than others. However, we found that overall children engaged with each topic evenly. There were small variations. Home and happiness proved somewhat more popular than school and friends.

 

The real variations in the popularity of each topic appeared when we broke children down by region. Engagement with each topic varied according to the location of our users. Users in the Middle East completed more prompts about sadness (62%) than about home (54%), while users in Europe completed more about home (78%) than about sadness (73%). (insert photo #6 around here) These results made us wonder whether cultural and social differences affect the types of prompts that users choose to answer. As our apps are downloaded in countries all over the world, these findings are of particular interest and relevance to us and will be important consider as we develop new apps.

Me: A Kid’s Diary aims to encourage children to think deeply and critically about themselves and their lives through prompts and questions. And while our data does not explicitly indicate that the app itself teaches empathy, we do hope and believe that the conversations and thinking that the app encourages are an important first step towards building critical and fundamental social emotional skills. We hope that our findings might be helpful to researchers thinking about how to engage children in conversations about their emotions and preferences not only onscreen, but offscreen as well.

 

 

Maayan Eldar is a Product and UX Research Manager at Tinybop, where she builds products that are friendly, playful, and ready for the world.

 

 

Ashley Mannetta is a user experience researcher and designer at HOMER learning, which designs apps to help children learn and love to read. Previously, she led user research and worked on content development at Tinybop.

Finn Caspian is a human boy living in outer space.  He and his friends (both human and robot) have lots of incredible adventures across the galaxy in this serially-told podcast, but the big personality of the robot co-host steals the show. The show also has brilliant ways of incorporating listeners’ participation in the production through listener-submitted jokes, art, and sound clips.

Carissa Christner: Where do you make your recordings? (at home? in a studio?)

Jonathan Messinger: For Finn Caspian I do all of my recordings in my home. I have a small office in my basement, and I’ve treated the walls with sound-deadening material to cut down on reverb. And over the last couple of years I’ve gradually upgraded my equipment for better sound recording. And I use Hindenburg Journalist Pro on a Mac Laptop to edit all of the audio together.

CC: Do you write all of your own material?  How much, if any, is improv that happens while you’re recording?

JM: I do! I write every story, and then I read it to my son Griffin, who serves as the show’s editor. He gives me feedback on the story, which I then incorporate during revision. The conversations at the end of the episode between Griffin and I are all unscripted, and a lot of times BeeBop, my robot cohost, and I improvise at the beginning of the show. But the story itself is scripted ahead of time. But the nice thing about being the writer, the “performer” and the producer is that if something isn’t sounding right to me once I’m recording, I can change it on the fly.

CC: How long does it take you to make one episode (all the way through from finding the idea, writing a script, recording, editing and publishing)?

JM: That is a great question that I’ve never really been able to pin down. I would say, roughly, each episode takes somewhere around 20 hours to make. But sometimes it’s quicker (if there are fewer sound elements, or if the story just flows), and sometimes it’s longer (when I’m wracking my brain).

CC: Do you have a favorite episode?

JM: My favorite, favorite episode is probably Two Heads Are Better than One from Season One, because the “Bob” characters in that episode are very funny to me. But I also really like Season 3 Episode 4: Repeat Business, because it was inspired by A Wrinkle in Time, and features one of my favorite puzzles we’ve had on the show.

CC: On average, how many e-mails/voicemails/pieces of art do you receive from listeners each week at this point?

JM: Roughly 250-300.

Question from my 8-year-old: How do you make BeeBop’s voice?

JM: BeeBop has a natural language generator program that he uses for his speech. He would be very mad if I took credit for his speech!

Question from my 4-year-old: Why does BeeBop make his sounds? Because I love him so much.

JM: BeeBop considers himself an entertainer first and foremost, so he always wants to make the beginning of each episode, when I’m talking too much, fun for kids!

 

Carissa Christner works as a Youth Services Librarian in Madison, Wisconsin which she likes much better than her first job in high school, working at a theme park. She and her two young children love to test out new apps together, read books and go for walks in the woods. She blogs about her library adventures at librarymakers.blogspot.com. Check out the App Fairy website and follow along on Twitter at @appfairy.