Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
In the research of Alissa E. Setliff and Mary L. Courage “Background Television and Infants’ Allocation of Their Attention during Toy Play”, the authors address the influence of background television on infants’ environment. The issue of the effect of TV on the distribution of their attention during the play was raised. Those who spend time at background television while playing may have many disadvantages in their later childhood (Chonchaiya, Sirachairat, Vijakkhana, Wilaisakditipakorn, and Pruksananonda, 2015).
88 infants at six months of age took part in the study. Due to such circumstances as somnolence, fussiness, crying, and parents’ interruption material from 28 of them was eliminated. Consequently, the final selection included 60 infants (30 female, 30 male). It is important to note that that the average age of infants during the research was 26 weeks. All participants were Caucasians, mainly middle class, who were enrolled from the information base where the data was provided by parents. 52 of infants returned at the age of 12 months to take part in an additional session. However, five of them were eliminated because of fussiness, crying, and somnolence. The number of participants was 47 (22 female, 25 male) (Setliff & Courage, 2011).
The initial analyses did not reveal any differences in primary indicators of attention to toys or to television between those 13 participants who took part only in the first session and those who participated in both. A year later, when infants were two years old, 37 of them took part in additional session (Setliff & Courage, 2011). During this procedure, three of them were eliminated because of equipment errors. 34 participants (19 girls, 15 boys) were examined at an average age of 100 weeks (Pempek, Kirkorian, & Anderson, 2014). Preliminary researches did not show differences between infants who participated in the previous sessions and those who took part in all procedures. Such equipment as analog cameras was used for the research. The first session’s participants were presented with bright-colored toys with movable parts that met age requirements. Infants in the second procedure were given seven toys as well as the same as was provided for six-month old participants. As for the third session, it should be noted that new models of age-appropriate toys were given to infants.
According to Setliff and Courage (2011), “the distinction between exposure to television that is ‘‘background’’ and that which is ‘‘foreground’’ is an important one that was first made by Anderson and Evans who defined foreground television as programming to which young children show sustained attention” (p.612). 30 clips were randomly generated for them. The first session participants were provided with ten minutes of TV programs. For the second and third sessions, infants were presented with other clips. Participants were secured in a children’s chair in the room and freely playing with toys. During the first half of the procedure, the TV was on, and the rest of the time it was off.
Parents were situated in the same room sitting behind the infants. The length of participants’ gaze at toys and television was judged by observers by viewing digital files in a real time condition. According to data provided by parents, 42 per cent of them reported on having at least two TV sets. Furthermore, their children at six months age watched approximately 40 minutes of TV programs while at twelve months they watched one hour per day (Pempek et al., 2014). The number of participants who had TV sets in their bedrooms was not high.
Various types of visual attention that represent the participants’ interest for toys and TV were taken into account: gaze duration and an overall number of glances. The results revealed the fact that infants directed their attention to toys rather than to TV (Setliff & Courage, 2011). The first goal of the research was to observe how background television influences the infants’ attention while they are playing. The following two issues were whether TV attracts their attention and how programs may hold it. The results revealed that at the ages of six and 12 months infants prefer playing to watching TV disregarding the type of programs provided as television interrupts their activity. One may note that when TV was on, the average length of children’s looks was considerably shorter than when it was off since infants focused their attention during 26 seconds (Pempek et al., 2014).
The above data states that programs were successful in gaining infants’ attention but not in holding it. For most infants, TV did not become a foreground activity. “This should allay the concerns of those who contend that the typical fast pace of current television programs compels visual fixation in young infants who find themselves unable to look away, regardless of comprehension” (Setliff & Courage, 2011, p.631). The failure of TV to attract infants’ attention is evident since the length of the gaze depends on such factors as viewing context and “whether a parent co-views with the infant” (Setliff & Courage, 2011, p.631). It should be noted that toys preference depends on the order of programs presentation. Participants, who were shown a program at the end of their session, were more distracted by TV in comparison to those who were presented with it during the first half of session.
The average length of a look to TV in the second group was twice more than of the first (7 seconds against 3 seconds) (Setliff & Courage, 2011). Hence, this order reflects a change of TV over time and familiarity with toys. According to Setliff and Courage (2011), infant-appropriate TV implemented in the study was beyond the comprehension level of the studied group, and it performed as a distractor rather than play. Furthermore, distraction of attention is more likely to decrease during the children’s growth. During the study, no differences of age distractibility were obvious. One may note that the study of the same group of participants who were reexamined at the age of 24 months indicated that they do not spend that much time looking at TV as they did at previous sessions (Pempek et al., 2014).
To conclude, TV presence in the life of infants may constrain their attention and interrupt from their activity. Despite the fact that children continue to engage in ongoing activities while exposing to background TV, watching programs may diminish their attention. Moreover, it even could slow down cognitive processing. The main concern is that diversion of attention from playing due to their frequent looks to TV. Play is considered to be the main factor of infants’ cognitive and social development, where they practice their motor habits and discover objects’ characteristics.
Reference
Chonchaiya, W., Sirachairat, C., Vijakkhana, N., Wilaisakditipakorn, T., & Pruksananonda, C. (2015). Elevated background TV exposure over time increases behavioural scores of 18‐month‐old toddlers. Acta Paediatrica, 104(10), 1039-1046.
Pempek, T. A., Kirkorian, H. L., & Anderson, D. R. (2014). The effects of background television on the quantity and quality of child-directed speech by parents. Journal of Children and Media, 8(3), 211-222.
Setliff, A. E., & Courage, M. L. (2011). Background television and infants’ allocation of their attention during toy play. Infancy, 16(6), 611-639.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.