Rosie and Jim

I have chosen to analyse the children’s television programme Rosie and Jim. This was a British television show that ran from 3^rd September 1990 until 11 December 2000. The programme continued on and off until 2004.

In regards to Alison’s comments on the other posts I thought I would use this opportunity to look for similarities we could use in our data. For example both mine and Jodie’s shows are 90’s children’s TV shows so we could base our analysis on this. An idea could be to have three shows from the 90’s and three from the 2000 – 2010 era and compare similarities and differences between the two. Series 3 (1995), series 4 (1996), series 5 (1997) and series 6 (1998) are all from the time frame Jodie suggested she would use - 1993-1998.

Alongside time frame we could have as a criterion British TV shows which Rosie and Jim is. It was also aired on CITV so we could compare the differences between the shows shown on CITV and CBBC although I doubt many differences would occur.

The running time of Rosie and Jim is 11/15 minutes therefore we need to look into the sections/amount of time we’re giving to each episode we’re analysing. Therefore we could have as our criterion programmes that do not exceed 15 minutes.

However this is all subject to the meeting we attend on Friday where we can discuss all of our findings and Alison’s comments.

In terms of finding this data I think my mom has kept some of my old Rosie and Jim videos but if not I will use Youtube via this link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNDuNh_Rw6Y

Winnie the Pooh - Hannah Bussell

I have decided to analyse 'The new adventures of Winnie the Pooh', the Disney adaptation of the original Winnie the Pooh stories by A.A Milne. With an audience predominantly aged 2-5, it was one of the few television programmes I would watch during this age.

 I have chosen to focus on the 1988 episode 'The great honey pot robbery' released under the Winnie the Pooh: learning series, as this was my favourite as a child. 

This particular series has a much more educational approach in comparison to the other Pooh series such as the 'Playtime' episodes. So whilst the episode still holds a good narrative it is much more geared towards learning.

I will watch the 23 minute episode using a link available on youtube, the episode is also available on VHS from Amazon if any problems with the online link occur. The link can be found here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nvsf-JEIE7E

Jodie Bird - Sooty and Sweep

Sooty and Sweep

Throughout my childhood, Sooty and Sweep was one of my favourite programs, one of which I have very fond memories of watching. Therefore, this compelled me to choose this particular program to research. However, straight away I hit a problem with my program choice, as the official Sooty and Sweep website will not be opening until the 1st of November - following a revamp. Nevertheless, I have collected my initial information from surrounding fan sites and tribute pages, in order to start off my evaluation of the program.

There have been numerous episodes of Sooty and Sweep aired since it started in 1995:

The Sooty Show (1955–1992),

Sooty & Co. (1993–1998)

Sooty Heights (1999–2000)

Sooty (2001–2004)

Sooty (2011–present)

The version I have chosen to work with, is Sooty & Co, as these would have been the episodes that I watched as a child. The age range for the program has been set to 2-4 year olds, which fits in nicely with our target age range.

As I have chosen an older series of the show, I looked into the methods of obtaining the episodes themselves. I will be ordering a DVD of the Sooty & Co show from Amazon, as they are priced at a maximum of £2. In addition to this, I will also use YouTube if needed for back-up purposes.



In the Night Garden

The programme that I have decided to analyse is 'In the Night Garden'. The reason that I have chosen this particular programme is because I spend a lot of time with younger family members who are fascinated by this programme, so I thought it would be interesting to see how it can help to aid their linguistic development as well as keeping them entertained!

The programme is aimed at ages between two and four, therefore it makes it a suitable choice as this fits in with the age range that we, as a group have decided to focus on. More on the programme's background can be found on the BBC's website: http://www.bbc.co.uk/cbeebies/grownups/shows/in-the-night-garden

The way in which I intend to access the programme is a mixture of finding some clips on YouTube and also watching the programme to see what data I can find, as the programme is currently still running. This week I will look at various episodes and begin to look at which ones will be useful to analyse.

Minutes for Friday 25th October

As usual our meeting this week was held between 10:30 and 11:30.

The first thing we discussed was Alison's feedback on the recording that she sent us regarding our proposal. The main issue was the way we had worded certain parts of our research project, as we had worded them as objectives as opposed to questions and we should be researching rather than evaluating. Therefore, we decided to change these to:

• What is the range of paralinguistic features used by the narrators and characters of these programmes and how far are they consistent with the features that have been established in CDS?
• To what extent are pitch and intonation used in these programmes and in what context do they occur?
• What are the various structural elements, such as repetition within these programmes and how does this help to aid and develop child language acquisition?  

Next, we decided we decided who would be analysing what programme and agreed that we would begin to look into some of these programmes and each write on the blog :

• Which programme we are analysing
• The age range of the programme (As suggested in Alison's feedback)
• How we intend to find these programmes (Whether it is a source such as you tube or the television etc)

There was further discussion about where we were heading next with our project, and as a group we agreed that by the end of reading week we will all have done the appropriate readings that we decided to use. Also by this time we will have gathered enough analysis to bring to the meeting, so that we can cross refer our data and findings.

Agenda for next week

• Assign everyone with the appropriate readings for reading week.
• Further discussion on how we will each analyse our selected programme

Exporting the Blog

By following the instructions in the 'Introduction to Blogging' booklet, I have successfully exported our blog. I have saved the file on my laptop, and backed it up onto an external hard drive for safe keeping.

Blog backed up on 18/10/13 - 15:53.

Minutes for Friday 18th October

Our third meeting for our RSEL project was help on 18th October between the times of 10:30 and 11:30. Firstly, we had a discussion regarding further refining our question, in light of Alison's comment on our minutes for last week. However, our main focus for today was redrafting our proposal and posting it on the blog. 

As previously stated, the first item on our agenda was to refine our question and we decided that as a group we would do this by using a certain age demographic. It was first suggested that the age range we should focus on is 3-6 years. However, after further discussion we decided that it would be more effective if the age range was 2-5 years. The reason we felt this age range would be more appropriate is because generally most theorists focus on language acquisition between 0 and 60 months. We discussed how after this age children stop acquiring as much language and begin to learn. Furthermore, at the age of 2, a child can really start to engage with the programmes they are watching. 

After last weeks meeting, Hannah went away and composed a detailed draft of our proposal. This week, we thought it would be appropriate to get together as a group and redraft the proposal so we could all contribute our own ideas before we submitted it. The first thing we decided to do was to explain in greater detail why we chose our question and in particular why we chose the age range of 2-5. Furthermore, we also went on to go into more detail on how we will conduct our research project, through the methodology. On our draft proposal it was suggested that we will analyse 'The Fimbles' as our fifth programme but after discussion it was decided instead that we would analyse 'Rosie and Jim'. Another thing we took into consideration from Alison's feedback is to properly reference the readings that Jodie found after the second meeting,which we have included in our proposal methodology. Lastly, we discussed certain data protection laws that we will need to consider when conducting our research and how we will go about keeping within the guidelines of these laws.

Finally, we realised that we have not yet exported our blog, which in an important part of the project. Therefore, Jodie agreed to look into doing this for next week.

Agenda for next meeting: Friday 25th October:

• Begin to gather data from the programmes that we are researching
• Gather further readings regarding Media and Child Directed Speech

Proposal

What are the features of Child development speech in televised programmes for ages 2-5?

We want to research features of Child Directed Speech (CDS) in televised programmes with a demographic of 2-5 year olds. We decided on the demographic of 2-5 year olds, as children should be in the two-word stage and have a large comprehension around 24 months. Furthermore, it is theorised that on average children stop acquiring language around 60 months (5years) and start learning at this point. Therefore, this project will focus on how features of CDS affect language acquisition, as opposed to language learning, within children's programmes. This topic is very relevant to the group as we all watched similar programmes when we were acquiring our own language, which in turn will give the group intrinsic motivation. Thus we have a shared group interest in how some of our favourite programmes have contributed towards this.

As a group, we have 3 primary research objectives:

•  To analyse pitch and intonation in relation to features of CDS  

• To evaluate the usage of paralinguistic features such as body language and facial expressions in relation to features of CDS 

• To examine the use of repetition within the structure of the programme in relation to features of CDS

Literature

A significant amount of research has already been done towards televised children's programmes and their role within child language acquisition. This provides us with the following literature that we will read as a starting point to support our research:

·             Lemish, Dafnah (2006), "Television as a talking picture book: A prop for language acquisition. "Malden ; Oxford : Blackwell

·             Linebarger, Deborah L; Vaala, Sarah (2010) "Screen media and language development in infants and toddlers: An ecological perspective Developmental Review", Vol.30(2), pp.176-202 [Peer Reviewed Journal]

·             Rice, Mabel (1983) "The role of television in language acquisition": Development review, Vol.3 (2) pp.211-224 [peer reviewed journal]

·             Rice, Mabel L, and Linda Woodsmall. (1988) "Lessons from television: Children's word learning when viewing. Child Development" pp. 420-429.

·             Rolandelli, David (1989) "Children and television: The visual superiority effect reconsidered". Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic media, Vol 33(1), p.69-81: Routledge

Methodology:

Each of us will analyse two episdodes from one programme, giving us data from ten different sources. The ten selected will consist of 5 prevelant programmes from past and present years. We also want to ensure that five of the programs have a purely narrative based genre.

Taking this into account we will analyse the following programs:

• Winnie the Pooh
• In the Night Garden
• Sooty and Sweep
• Peppa Pig
• Rosie and Jim

We will then extrapolate all our data from individual analysis and present it in an analytical structure which will be the main body of the research. Due to the wide demographics, we will be able to analyse which features are more prevalent for different ages within our target audience. In this section we should find similar patterns in regards to our research objectives, and therefore conclude an answer to our question.

We plan to analyse the pitch by noting frequency of significant pitch shifts. Furthermore, we will record how many times this occurs in each programme and at what specific points. We will note obvious uses of higher pitch when addressing characters and the audience.

Furthermore, we aim to note uses of body language on screen. We will note when this happens, what is happening around the time of its usage, and what effect it is believed to have. We will research what people theorise about the use of body language in CDS and see if these match with the features found in the programmes.

Finally, we aim to examine repeated phrases and themes within the programmes. We will note at what points these happen, and what impact they have on the story. In addition to this, because these programmes are narrative, we will be able to observe where the repetition occurs in relation to the development of the story.

We realise that there may be certain copyright laws which surround the collection of data for research. Therefore, we will find episodes which either have no copyright, or apply for usage. If it is paramount and we do not receive notice back from the copyright holder, we shall analyse but reference the artists appropriately.

 

Minutes for Friday 11th October

Again, this week our meeting was held from 10:30 till 11:30, in which we discussed our project in more detail. Our main point of conversation was to refine our question, whilst taking on Alison's feedback, and planning our proposal.

After looking over Alison's comments on our previous post, we agreed that our question is too wide, and we could achieve a more detailed research project if we made our question more specific. Therefore, we decided to focus primarily on child directed speech in televised programs, and how it has changed throughout the years. However, after further discussion we soon found fault in this question, as it was still rather wide spread. Further discussion finally led us to our revised question:

What are the features of child directed speech in televised programs?

Within this question, we still wanted to look more closely into structure, pitch and paralinguistic features, as these factors tend to vary depending on the program.

Secondly, we discussed our proposal, planning in more detail our methodology and readings. We found it imperative that we split the data collection fairly, ensuring that each person does an equal amount towards the project. Therefore, we decided on each watching two episodes of a different program, analysing it as we go along. Some of the children's programs suggested were: In the Night Garden, Winnie the Pooh, Sooty and Sweep and Pokémon. Within the process of choosing these, we wanted to select a number of old and new programs, which contained speaking and noises from the main characters of the show.

Finally, we discussed some readings which we would like to look at throughout our project. We all  had a few readings ready for discussion, however some overlapped. Our temporary list of readings found so far for our project are as follows:

• D Lemish - Television as a talking picture book: A prop fro language acquisition
• DL Linebarger & D Walker - Infants' and toddlers' television viewing and language outcomes
• M Rice - The role of television in language acquisition
• M Rice & L Woodsmall - Lessons from television: Children's word learning when viewing

These reading were mentioned as our starting point, many of which may changed once looked into in detail, and many more will be added. A further point we were unsure on is whether or not to include American television shows in our data. We came to a unanimous conclusion on this point, thinking we would concentrate on English programs, unless we are lacking in data, and need to expand.

After planning the proposal together, Hannah kindly volunteered to write up the notes into our completed proposal by Tuesday of week 3.

Agenda for the next meeting: Friday 18th of October

• Look further into what readings to include
• Talk in detail about what programs to use

Research ideas feedback

I (Frazer) saw Alison today, and was given some very sound advice. I was advised that the research question will probably require too much research in such a short space of time and that there will be many issues in regards to consent that we will need to be careful of. I was advised that while we can still keep a similar idea, the current research question will probably be overreaching too much. One potential idea Alison suggested was to look at features of child directed language (such as pitch) used in children's TV shows. That will also make the data collection much easier. I will discuss this in further detail with the group on Friday.

Minutes for Friday 4th October

Minutes

Friday 4^th October 2013 10:00 – 11:00

As a group we met on Friday 4^th October to familiarise ourselves with the RSEL project and to establish certain job roles and requirements.

Firstly we identified a time that would be convenient for all of us and decided on Fridays at 10:30 until 11:30 with additional meetings being constructed as and when we needed, such as nearer the deadline or if there was difficulty with extracurricular activities. We thought that it was good to have a certain time put in place so that we collect our data and readings and bring them back to the group weekly.

In the first VL Alison mentions that the first point of interest is to think of a topic of interest. We brainstormed our ideas and found that we all enjoy Child Language Acquisition and want to base our research question on Child Language. This pulls on two important motivations; instrumental, whereby we will gain something from the project i.e a pass mark and an intrinsic motivation whereby we enjoy our topic.

Next in our meeting we decided to think of a question we could investigate and brainstormed ideas of what interested us. I (Jenny) thought of expanding on an investigation I had done previously looking at screen media on child language acquisition. The group were intrigued by this idea and we decided on a draft research question:

Are the effects of televised interaction greater than face to face interaction on child development?

Within this research question we decided on 3 sub questions to focus our research question and get the most out of our studies, these were as follows:

Does the repetitive structure in televised interaction help more than face to face interaction?

Does the phonology in televised interaction help more than face to face interaction?

Do the paralinguistic features in televised interaction help more than face to face interaction?

We all noted the need for data protection when acquiring our own data in the research project. We realised that we would need 2/3 different groups of children to test on in order to get comprehensive data. Catherine noted that she had younger family members that she could analyse. I (Jenny) work at a primary school and nursery so with the consent of the school could analyse a group of children. Frazer, Jodie and Hannah also noted that contacting local schools and nurseries and asking if we could have access to a group of children for university studies could also be beneficial.

We have all done questionnaires within the Independent Study setting so know how to approach people in regards to filling out questionnaire studies. Questionnaires are interesting sources of data which we could all equally distribute.

Agenda for next time – Friday 11^th October 2013:

·         Discuss any progress fine tuning the research question

·         Look at Alison’s comments and review them

·         Decide on 5 key books/texts/journals each of us could read over the following week

Note to Alison:

Please feel free to add any comments on our thoughts and ideas from our first meeting and we will take each of these on board. Thank you!