Definitional issues came to the fore during the debates surrounding the passage of the Children’s Television Act of 1990 and the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) strengthening of its regulations several
years later (FCC, 1991, 1993, 1995). Because the intent of the Act was to encourage broadcasters to air more programming that would serve the needs of children—and because broadcasters worried that they would be forced to air didactic “spinach television” that no one would watch—the programming required by the Act had to be clearly defined. As one might expect, these definitions were subject to extensive debate.
One central issue concerned the breadth of the definition. Some argued for limiting the definition to programs with academic goals and excluding programming that was primarily prosocial in nature, for fear that broadcasters would simply label family sitcoms as “prosocial.” Others felt that prosocial programs hold value for children as well, so that prosocial programming, too, should “count” under the Act. In fact, both positions
proved to hold some merit. Empirical research has indeed shown that exposure to prosocial programs can result in beneficial effects on children’s attitudes and behavior in areas such as cooperation and the reduction of stereotypes.
At the same time, though, some broadcasters did respond to the Act by labeling existing—and, in some cases, violent—cartoons or teen situation comedies (e.g., Saved by the Bell, The Flintstones, G.I. Joe) as educational/informational (E/I) because they included prosocial messages (e.g., Kunkel & Canepa, 1995). In one extreme instance, a broadcaster claimed that Yogi Bear met the provisions of the Act because, “despite the fact that the program is entertaining, it nevertheless does teach certain moral and ethical values such as not to do stupid things or you will have trouble; don’t take what doesn’t belong to you or be prepared to face the music” (quoted in Kunkel, 1998, p. 45).
Apart from the definition itself, a second issue concerned the standard by which programs should be judged. Some argued that, for a television series to qualify under the Act, empirical research should demonstrate its
positive impact on children. However, broadcasters countered that it would be unfair to require them to run the risk that, after investing millions of dollars to produce an educational television series, it might not be counted if subsequent research failed to find a significant effect on its audience. Thus, they argued for using the intent behind the program as a standard instead.
In the end, the Children’s Television Act of 1990 broadly defined “educational/ informational programming” as carrying content that will “further the positive development of the child in any respect, including the child’s cognitive/intellectual or emotional/social needs” (FCC, 1991). And although the FCC subsequently strengthened the Act by requiring broadcasters to air a specified quota of 3 hours per week of E/I programming, they decided against narrowing the definition of E/I programs. Yet, contrast the definition used in the Act with, for example, the stricter definition that Condry, Scheibe, Bahrts, and Potts (1993) used in a content analysis of children’s television:
A significant portion of the program is devoted to teaching information that the children in the audience are not likely to already know (e.g., the alphabet, vocabulary, historical or scientific information, applied information
for everyday life) or demonstrating skills or crafts.
The history and policy implications of the Act have been discussed at length elsewhere, along with the impact of the Act on broadcasting in the United States (e.g., J. Bryant, J. A. Bryant, Mulliken, McCollum,&Love,
2001; Jordan, 2000; Kunkel, 1998; Kunkel & Wilcox, 2001; Schmitt, 1999; Steyer, 2002). For the purposes of this discussion, it is sufficient to note that educational television has been conceptualized and defined in many different ways.
In light of the diverse definitions that have been used in the past, it is useful to clarify the parameters of the educational television series included in this volume.With rare exception, the television series discussed
here were produced with the intent of serving specific educational objectives. Those objectives may correspond to any of a number of academic subjects (e.g., science, literacy, mathematics), or they may be prosocial in nature. The degree to which each series succeeded in meeting its educational objectives has been evaluated through empirical research with children. Typically, this research took the form of summative research, that is, substantive assessments of educational impact after a given series was produced. In some cases, relevant data are also included from formative research that was conducted during production to inform and guide the development of the final product. (For more extended discussions regarding the distinction between formative and summative research and their application to the production of educational television, see, e.g., Mielke, 1990; Palmer & Fisch, 2001.)
The focus of this volume is on television programs designed for children rather than adults, although I occasionally draw on the adult literature when useful. (For information on the impact of educational programs
aimed at adult viewers, see, e.g., Greenberg & Gantz, 1976; Singhal & Rogers, 1999; Winsten, 1994.) In addition, the bulk of the discussion concerns the effects of unaided viewing by children, rather than viewing in the context of adult-led follow-up activities.
Read More : What Is “Educational Television”?
