Learning in Knowledge and Documentary Programmes

RESEARCH 24 18/2005 E Maya Götz Learning in knowledge and documentary programmes What are the benefits of contemporary programmes for primary school children? Children learn about processes and “relatively durable acquisition of “retained” by the child as well as how singular facts in knowledge and knowledge, skills, abilities, attitudes much can be “regurgitated” (see Figs. documentary programmes. Such and patterns of behaviour or the 1 and 2). learning is less frequently about change thereof due to experience” The limitations of this model lie in general coherences and values. But (Brockhaus 1998, p. 310). If the aim the conception that there is a fixed they do learn something different of a knowledge programme is to trans- set consisting of chunks of content from every programme, as each mit prescribed contents, then the that are transmitted, just as a ball is creates its own specific learning success of such an effort can be “hit” to a player in a game. Accord- space. determined precisely through use of ingly, viewers are assumed to be “re- pre- and post-testing (cf. Truglio in ceivers” of previously determined this issue). Such an approach is based, content. implicitly, on a reception model of However, we know from reception television in which certain contents, Learning in television studies (for example, Stuart Hall chunks of content as it were, are 1980) how differently people see t is impossible not to learn. This transmitted by the programme and television contents from one another. fact also applies to television. received in kind by the child. Experi- They are attentive to certain things IBrockhaus, the German work of mental tests check whether, and if so, and not to others. They comprehend reference, tells us that learning is the which chunks of content have been what they perceive against the backdrop of their individual interests, ex- periences and patterns of interpretation (cf. Bachmair 1996, Mikos 2001). Accordingly, reception is not tantamount to imbibing chunks of information, but rather it consists of a process that involves the construc- tion of meaning. As a result, we can claim that each child (and each adult) sees and interprets a different programme. If it is the case that everyone sees a different programme, then it must be concluded that learning by means of television should become more individual. And, models that interpret learning more or less as a one-directional instructional process are not adequate. Increasingly, educational science is coming to embrace the constructivist- Carolina Nesyt systemic perception of learning (cf. Fig. 1 Larochelle inter alia 1998, Phillips RESEARCH 18/2005 E 25 open writing situation in particular re- veals the astonishing variety of learning that children themselves realise they have achieved by viewing television. 10-year-old Robin, for example, refers to the benefits of learning about a culturally embedded ritual: “In Dream Wedding you learn how to get married”; he also mentions communication strategies: “In Who wants to be a millionaire? you learn how to answer” (cf. Neuss in this issue). Given this theoretical background, it seems that the question regarding what children learn from knowledge programmes is far more complex than would appear at first glance. Meth- Carolina Nesyt odological forms of access need to be Fig. 2 applied that enable understanding how children develop and express 2000). According to this conception, child interprets the illuminated image allocations of meaning. The analysis learning is not solely a process of ac- as a train. Even if we are positive that of the children’s statements should be commodating and retaining contents, this is a cave due to our different per- aimed at reconstructing the points but one that mainly involves interpret- spective and knowledge, for the child children relate to during the pro- ing, acquiring and consequently this is the image of a train. A consid- gramme as well as to identify what developing individual constructions. erable number of the perceptions, was found to be attractive to and The acquisition of knowledge is un- learning, meanings, etc. constructed supportive of their learning. derstood to be an active, self-regulat- by the child will be retained over a The mission of the Internationales ed, constructive, contextual and so- longer period of time. Further, the Zentralinstitut für das Jugend- und cial process (Kösel, Scherer 2002). child links new phenomena to knowl- Bildungsfernsehen – the Internatio- Constructivist-systemic pedagogy edge already possessed, as seen in the nal Central Institute for Youth and (for example, Reich 2002, Voss 2002) interpretation of what appeared in the Educational Television (IZI) – is to can be linked to activity-oriented re- beam of the torch. Such islands of promote quality in children’s, young ception research, as both assume the knowledge are woven together into people’s and educational television. active involvement of learners and webs of understanding.1 Hence, its aim is to understand how viewers in learning and meaning The meaning of this argument in learning in television takes place and making. Here the following “child in terms of learning with television is to pinpoint the learning spaces of- a cave” metaphor can be applied to that children direct their attention to fered to children by individual pro- illustrate this conception (adapted specific aspects of the programmes, grammes. Particularly interesting are from Elschenbroich) (see Fig. 3). Me- namely those to which they can relate. the factors supportive of learning that taphorically speaking, the child can They then interpret these aspects are present in the programmes as well be said to be using a torch to illumi- through use of previous knowledge as those programmes in which learn- nate something on the wall that is and experience, integrating parts of ing processes develop in ways that are found to be interesting. That is, chil- the programme they have interpreted different to producers’ intentions. dren can be said to “illuminate” their into their evolving understanding of environment for themselves, directing the world. Consequently, quantitati- their attention to specific things and ve testing of their knowledge that may The research method leaving out others. In doing so, the be the main interest of researchers child subsequently interprets what is may reflect but a limited part of what During the data-gathering period of seen against the backdrop of the children have learnt from television. the research reported here (2002– knowledge already “possessed”. In this context the significance of 2004), 6 programmes that explicitly Thus, if a picture of an express train Norbert Neuss’s study becomes ap- target primary school children were is caught up in the light beam, the parent (cf. Neuss in this issue). The selected for the IZI study, entitled RESEARCH 26 18/2005 E “Knowledge and Documentary Pro- Table 1: Number of participants in the sub- other things, coded in accordance grammes for Children”.2 Wissen samples with the following research No. of Average years macht Ah! (Knowledge makes you go Programme Children of age questions: Do the children perceive Ah!) (WDR*), Willi wills wissen (Wil- Was ist Was TV 46 9.4 any learning achievements? If so, li wants to know it all) (BR*/FWU), Wissen macht Ah! 45 8.9 what contents do they refer to as such Willi wills wissen 51 8.2 Null-Acht-13 (Zero-Eight-13) Felix und die wilden Tiere 61 8. an achievement? And, to which (WDR*/ SFB*/MDR*), Felix und die Anja und Anton 44 7.9 programme sequence? Does the wilden Tiere (Felix and the wild construct they have learnt from the animals)(BR), Anja und Anton (Anja remembered most about the pro- programme concur with a “generally and Anton) (ZDF*) and Was ist Was gramme. In individual interviews, valid” reality? On what level does this TV (What is what TV) (Super RTL).3 they were asked the same questions self-perceived learning lie? 300 children (153 girls and 147 boys) once again. The quantitative tendencies identified between 6 and 12 years of age partic- In order to determine the dimensions via MAXqda were subjected to fur- ipated in the study. The average age and contents of what was learnt, we ther differentiation in accordance of the sub-samples was adjusted to asked the children to define their with qualitative research criteria. The be as close as possible to the pro- learning achievement. Thus, during children’s statements were recon- grammes’ target audience (cf. Fig. 1). the interviews they were asked to re- structed to capture the meaning or gist Data gathering was conducted in a late to the scenes they found impor- and their connections were identified natural setting (Munich day-care tant (“What was the programme (i. e. the points they related to during centres), thus the children participat- about?”). This was followed by the the programme). ed in the study in a familiar environ- question “Was there anything you ment.4 Divided into groups compris- learnt?” Usually the children said ing 7 to 10 children, they watched one “yes” or “no”, often adding a brief The feeling of learning episode of one of the aforementioned explanation like: “How to make a programmes. Following the viewing, (news)paper”. The interviewers sub- Initially, the responses to the question the children painted a picture of what sequently referred to the contexts – “Was there anything for you to they liked most about the programme. mentioned in this case – “What about learn?” – were simply added up and During the interview that followed, the paper? What happened?” After- programmes ranked, accordingly. participants were asked about their wards the children were asked once This admittedly simple procedure re- painting and perceptions of the show. again what was new for them in the vealed a number of interesting tend- 4 weeks later, during a second round programme from their point of view.

Load more