week 4 video research

Child Development, May/June 2015, Volume 86, Number 3, Pages 800–811

Infants Learn Baby Signs From Video

Shoshana Dayanim and Laura L. Namy Emory University

There is little evidence that infants learn from infant-oriented educational videos and television programming. This 4-week longitudinal experiment investigated 15-month-olds’ (N = 92) ability to learn American Sign Lan- guage signs (e.g., patting head for hat) from at-home viewing of instructional video, either with or without parent support, compared to traditional parent instruction and a no-exposure control condition. Forced-choice, elicited production, and parent report measures indicate learning across all three exposure conditions, with a trend toward more robust learning in the parent support conditions, regardless of medium. There were no differences between experimental and control conditions in the acquisition of corresponding verbal labels. This constitutes the first experimental evidence of infants’ cially available educational videos.

High-quality educational television programming can be an effective source of learning in preschool- and school-aged children (e.g., Anderson, Huston, Schmitt, Linebarger, & Wright, 2001; Naigles & Mayeux, 2001; Rice, Huston, Truglio, & Wright, 1990). However, evidence supporting infants’ learn- ing from purportedly educational videos is more equivocal. Several studies suggest a negative corre- lation between overall media exposure and mea- sures of communicative development in infants under the age of 2 (Chonchaiya & Pruksananonda, 2008; Linebarger & Walker, 2005; Zimmerman, Christakis, & Meltzoff, 2007a), leading the Ameri- can Academy of Pediatrics [AAP] (2011) to renew its original recommendation (AAP, 1999) to avoid exposing children under 2 to television. Despite this recommendation, an estimated 90% of parents show television and videos to their infants (Zimm- erman, Christakis, & Meltzoff, 2007b) including many “educational” videos targeting infants. Vid- eos purporting to promote infants’ vocabulary and communicative development, in particular, have saturated the market (Vaala et al., 2010).

Shoshana Dayanim is now at the Department of Psychology, Keiser University.

We thank Diana Neeves, Saryn Levy, Cassie Hendrix, Kathleen Ghio, Trisha Patel, Evelyn Gilstein, and Jhonelle Bailey for their assistance with this study. We also thank the parents and partici- pants for their extraordinary dedication of time and effort to this research endeavor. This research was supported by NICHD Grant 5-R03-HD058777.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Shoshana Dayanim, Department of Graduate Psychology, Keiser University Graduate School, c/o 1380 Jody Lane, Atlanta, GA 30329. Electronic mail may be sent to sdayanim@keiseruniversi ty.edu.

ability to learn expressive communication from commer-

Few studies support the notion that educational videos can facilitate language acquisition in infancy. There is limited evidence that repeated exposure via video augments infants’ acquisition of words also heard in routine input, relative to infants who encounter the words in routine input alone (Lemish & Rice, 1986; Vandewater, 2011). Vandewater, Barr, Park, and Lee (2010) have also found that repeat- edly pairing words and shapes over a period of 15 days enables toddlers as young as 18 months to identify which shapes correspond to particular words.

There is, however, strong evidence that even when infants learn from video, there is a “video deficit” (Anderson & Pempek, 2005; Schmitt & Anderson, 2002)—attenuated learning relative to learning from live, interactive instruction (e.g., Barr & Hayne, 1999; Krcmar, Grela, & Lin, 2007). Fur- thermore, numerous studies report a failure to exhi- bit heightened learning of words introduced through a video medium in children younger than 24 months (see DeLoache et al., 2010; Krcmar, 2011; Robb, Richert, & Wartella, 2009).

This debate also extends to whether parental involvement in the viewing experience enhances learning. There is compelling evidence that parent coviewing enhances learning from television in pre- schoolers (e.g., Reiser, Williamson, & Suzuki, 1988; Roseberry, Hirsh-Pasek, Parish-Morris, & Golinkoff, 2009; Singer & Singer, 1998) and increases attention and verbal interactions during viewing in infants

© 2015 The Authors Child Development © 2015 Society for Research in Child Development, Inc. All rights reserved. 0009-3920/2015/8603-0010 DOI: 10.1111/cdev.12340

Infants’ Learning From Videos 801

(Barr, Zack, Muentener, & Garcia, 2008; Fender, Richert, Robb, & Wartella, 2010; Fidler, Zack, & Barr, 2010; Lemish, 1987). These consequences of parent coviewing may enhance the depth of infants’ cognitive processing of the video stimuli (Strouse, O’Doherty, & Troseth, 2013; Strouse & Troseth, 2014). However, recent longitudinal experimental studies (DeLoache et al., 2010; Robb et al., 2009) reported no evidence of heightened word learning in an infant coviewing condition, relative to view- ing alone or controls. Despite this lack of evidence that parent coviewing augments learning from tele- vision in infants, the AAP (2011) revised its guide- lines to suggest that if infant viewing is inevitable, coviewing is better than allowing an infant to view alone.

Although previous longitudinal studies of infants’ learning from videos have reported null effects, those studies focused exclusively on the acquisition of high-frequency words to which infants are exposed regularly outside of the video- viewing environment. Because exposure to the target stimuli was not fully controlled, there was evidence of word learning across conditions, includ- ing control conditions (e.g., DeLoache et al., 2010; Robb et al., 2009).

In the current longitudinal experiment, we asked whether better controlled exposure delivered exclu- sively through video would lead to any evidence of learning relative to a no-exposure control condition, and if so whether there was evidence of a video deficit, a benefit for parental coviewing, or both. To ensure experimental control of exposure, we investi- gated infants’ ability to learn symbolic gestures, or baby signs instead of focusing on word learning. Baby signs also offer better experimental control of exposure because they are not routinely employed in everyday interactions with infants. Thus, by using signs in place of spoken words, we are able to assess the independent impact of video exposure on learning more directly. Baby signs are a strong test case because infants begin using words and signs at around the same time, shortly after their first birthdays (see Acredolo & Goodwyn, 1988) and appear to use them for the same communica- tive purposes (Namy, 2001; Namy & Waxman, 1998). The availability of numerous educational vid- eos marketed toward infants that offer sign instruc- tion enables us to systematically and ecologically investigate the impact of medium (video vs. tradi- tional instruction) and parental involvement (co- viewing vs. alone) on infant learning.

We investigated 15-month-olds’ learning of baby signs from at-home viewing of commercially

available videos over the course of 3 weeks of exposure and also tested retention following 1 week without exposure. Acquisition of baby signs when viewing the videos alone or coviewing with parents was compared to traditional parent instruction and to a no-exposure control condition.

Method

Participants

Ninety-two 15-month-olds (M = 15.17 months at study onset, range = 13.95–16.81, SD = 7.04; 51 males) were recruited from the greater Atlanta area. The sample included approximately 74% Caucasian, 18% African American, 1% Asian, 1% Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and 6% Mixed Ethnicities, with 8% identifying as being of His- panic or Latino descent.

Inclusion criteria included exposure to videos or screen media prior to recruitment contact, and lack of prior exposure to “baby signs.” Previous expo- sure to screen media was required to avoid induc- ing parents who were not already doing so to violate the AAP’s recommendation. No parents con- tacted were excluded for this criterion. Parents’ informed consent included acknowledgment of the AAP’s recommendation to avoid television expo- sure for infants under the age of 2.

Stimuli

We identified 18 target signs to use in the experi- ment. We selected only target signs that were object names to accommodate the use of still photographs of referents in learning assessments, and to mirror the types of labels (both verbal and gestural) most frequently acquired at this age. Target signs were selected based on familiarity of their referents as indexed by age of comprehension of their verbal labels (comprehended at a threshold of 50% of infants by M = 12.3 months; Fenson et al., 1994). These items included: airplane, apple, baby, ball, banana, bear, bird, book, car, cat, cookie, cracker, dog, fish, flower, hat, juice, and shoe. All referents were depicted in at least three different commer- cially available video productions intended to teach baby sign to infants.

Participants assigned to video-viewing conditions received a DVD compilation derived from six com- mercially available videos intended to teach infants baby signs. Each compilation included three chap- ters approximately 20 min in length with footage sampled from three to five videos in each chapter.

802 Dayanim and Namy

Each chapter included clips depicting the signs (and accompanying verbal labels) for each of the 18 objects. Parents were directed to rotate through the chapters across viewings to vary the order in which exposure to the signs occurred. We have opted not to identify the titles of the videos, as we did not seek to test the efficacy of individual video produc- tions. We were interested in assessing the impact of exposure to varying range of commercially avail- able videos. By declining to identify the video pro- ductions employed, we avoid any potential opportunities for the products’ marketers to make claims that may or may not be warranted based on this composite evidence.

There was variability in the formal features employed across the videos. These included (a) how each sign was introduced (e.g., introduction of sign occurs while an image of the referent was present vs. sequential presentation of the sign and the referent), (b) whether foreground or background music was employed, (c) whether still or moving images of the referents were presented, (d) how many scene changes were involved for each sign (ranging from 6 to approximately 21), and (e) the number of times the sign was repeated (ranging from approximately 3 to 15).

Although these formal features varied across pro- ductions, there were also several common factors across all sampled videos. Each video introduced signs in the first or second scene by showing an engaging person (either adult or child) producing a sign while simultaneously speaking the English ver- bal label for the referent. This introduction of the sign was consistently followed by several images of the referent, followed by a repetition of the sign and verbal label. For example, the video might depict an adult producing a sign for “dog” while saying “dog.” This would be followed by images of various types of dogs (real and toy dogs, still and moving pictures). Each clip concluded with the adult or child once again saying and signing “dog.”

Parents in the parent instruction condition intro- duced their infants to the 18 signs using a labora- tory-designed picture book in lieu of a video. Each page in the book was dedicated to one target sign (for a total of 18 pages) and included three different still photographs for each target. The stills were taken directly from screen shots included on the videos. A thumbnail picture of an adult producing the target sign with arrows signaling directions of motion was included in the top corner of each page to remind parents how to produce the sign. Appen- dix S1 in the online Supporting Information depicts sample pages from the book.

Each parent in the parental instruction condition also received a set of printed instructional materials on sign production including still frames from the sign videos demonstrating the sign being per- formed and pictures of the referents being labeled. These still photographs were augmented by sepa- rate printed verbal instructions describing how to perform each sign. The experimenter also demon- strated the signs to the parents in person during their baseline visit to the laboratory.

Procedure

Infants were randomly assigned to one of four conditions: video viewing alone (n = 20), video co- viewing with a parent (n = 27), a parent instruction condition that involved teaching signs using a pic- ture book (n = 21), and a no-sign-exposure control condition (n = 24). Seven additional infants who dropped out after 1 or 2 weeks were excluded from the study analysis (two each in video alone, parent instruction, and control group; one in the video co- viewing group). In all three experimental groups, parents were instructed to expose infants to 15– 20 min of sign instruction at home 4 days a week for 3 weeks, with no exposure to signs between instructional sessions. Given that the children tend to acquire the verbal labels for the 18 objects early in development, we expected children in all condi- tions to exhibit learning of the verbal labels for these objects due to routine, incidental exposure. As a result, we did not necessarily expect condition effects in word learning, despite the enhanced expo- sure to both words and signs for these referents resulting from participation in the study.

Video Viewing Groups

Parents in the video-alone condition were instructed not to interact with their child during viewing sessions. Those in the coviewing condition were instructed to watch with their child as they typically would at home and were told they could engage in any of the following behaviors: directing their child’s attention to the screen, imitating signs, and eliciting sign production from the child during viewing. Although such mediated (i.e., interactive and responsive) coviewing was encouraged, it was not mandated.

Parent Instruction Group

Parents in the parent instruction condition were instructed to introduce their infants to the 18 signs

Infants’ Learning From Videos 803

using the picture book. Parents were encouraged to teach their infants signs as they might teach new words from picture books at home and to point to the photographs and use verbal labels as well as signs. They were asked to limit instruction time to a maximum of 20 min per day, 4 days a week, to match exposure in the video viewing conditions.

Parents in all conditions were instructed to avoid using or imitating signs outside of the viewing or instructional sessions. If infants signed between instructional sessions, parents were asked to acknowledge the sign verbally and not to imitate it themselves. No instructions were specified regard- ing the use of verbal labels for the target objects outside of the viewing environment. Parents were asked to complete a diary at home documenting the date of each instructional session and noting if they saw their child producing a sign during a session or using a sign appropriately in between sessions. After completing 3 weeks of sign instruc- tion, parents were directed not to expose their infants to any signs for 1 week prior to returning to the laboratory at the end of the 4th week.

Learning Assessments

Children and parents in all conditions visited the laboratory weekly for 4 weeks for a total of five vis- its including baseline intake, to complete sign learn- ing assessments. Learning assessments included a weekly parent report checklist, a weekly forced- choice comprehension task, and a single elicited production task administered at the fifth visit after a week without at-home exposure.

Parent Report

Parents indicated weekly on a vocabulary check- list whether their infants comprehended or pro- duced appropriately each of the 18 target signs. They also indicated whether their infants compre- hended or produced the verbal labels correspond- ing to the signs (see Appendix S2 in the online Supporting Information).

Forced Choice

The laboratory-based forced-choice task was designed to measure sign comprehension. The experimenter, who sat across a table from the infant, placed photographs of two objects from the stimulus set (e.g., airplane and dog) on the table and produced the sign for one of them (e.g., the air- plane sign), asking the child, “Can you get it?” To

minimize fatigue, the experimenter administered six trials at each laboratory visit with the target items randomly selected. Across sessions, all items were tested at least once. Objects in each picture pair were matched for salience based on pilot testing with 15-month-olds (n = 19) who did not partici- pate in the experiment proper. During piloting, we selected pairings we believed were well matched for salience and presented them to the infants, ask- ing them to “get one.” Any pairings that elicited a bias toward selecting one object were altered by pairing more salient objects from one pair with more salient objects from another pair and readmin- istering the choice elicitation with additional infants to ensure that infants did not exhibit default sys- tematic preferences within any pairing.

Experimenters were generally blind to condition assignment, although conversations with parents occasionally inadvertently revealed to which condi- tion the infant was assigned. The experimenters were instructed to ensure that the two picture cards and sign production were equidistant from the child, and to ensure that their eye gaze while elicit- ing a choice remained fixed on the infant’s face. Coders were also blind to condition.

Elicited Production

On their final visit, in addition to completing the checklist and forced-choice comprehension task, infants in the experimental conditions also com- pleted an elicited sign production task as a conser- vative test of learning and retention. We also administered the elicited production task to five infants in the no-exposure control group but discon- tinued this with subsequent control participants due to the distress and confusion displayed by these infants. None of the five who participated produced any signs.

This measure was somewhat exploratory as infants of this age often fail to produce communica- tive signals in laboratory-based elicited production tasks. As a result, we expected that production would be low, but nonetheless had the potential to provide a compelling index of depth of learning. To elicit production, the experimenter presented photo- graphs of the target objects one at a time and elic- ited the sign by asking the infant, “Can you say [points to photograph] this with your hands?” or “Can you show me [verbal label] with your hands?” The number of trials administered varied across infants based on their attention and fussiness (M = 7.61 trials, SD = 3.92, range = 2–18). Eleven infants from the experimental groups did not com-

804 Dayanim and Namy

plete this task due to fussiness (4 = video alone, 3 = supported video, 4 = parent instruction). This resulted in a total sample size for this measure of 57 across the three experimental conditions.

Coding

A coder blind to condition classified the infants’ choices during the forced-choice task and the infants’ responses to the sign elicitation from video. Choice response was based on which card the infant first touched. Elicitation was coded by credit- ing infants with correct sign production if they pro- duced an intentional hand movement that included at least two of the three central elements of the sign: hand shape, motion trajectory, and sign-space loca- tion, which were each coded independently. A sec- ond coder evaluated a randomly selected 10% of the sessions. Intercoder agreement was 97% on forced-choice trials and 87% on elicited production.

Results

Next, we report the parent report data for both sign learning and word learning followed by the more conservative laboratory-based forced-choice sign comprehension and elicited sign production mea- sures. Data collected during the first 3 weeks of the study (four laboratory visits including baseline) were used to evaluate learning whereas data col- lected after the no-exposure delay were analyzed separately as a measure of retention.

Parent Report

We investigated infants’ baby sign learning as well as parents’ report of children’s use of verbal labels for each of the 18 target objects. We tracked verbal label acquisition both as a replication of previ- ous longitudinal research and as a manipulation check to ensure that there were no systematic report- ing biases exhibited by parents in particular conditions. For both sign and word production, we calculated the proportion of target items (of 18) that parents reported their children produced each week. We investigated whether parents reported growth in target sign and verbal label acquisition over time and whether this varied as a function of expo- sure condition using two-way analyses of variance (ANOVAs) with exposure condition (video alone, coviewing, parent instruction, and no-exposure con- trol) as a between-subjects variable and laboratory visit (baseline, 1, 2, 3) as a within-subject variable.

Sign Learning

We analyzed the proportion of signs parents reported infants produced using a two-way (Condi- tion 9 Laboratory Visit) ANOVA. This analysis yielded a main effect of condition, F(3, 88) = 7.01, p < .0005, partial g 2 = .19, and a main effect of lab- oratory visit, Λ = .49, F(3, 86) = 29.34, p < .0005, partial g 2 = .51, mediated by a Condition 9 Labo- ratory Visit interaction, Λ = .66, F(9, 88) = 4.33, p < .0005, partial g 2 = .13 (see Figure 1). This inter- action was driven by the control group, which devi- ated from the three experimental conditions. Whereas parents of infants in all three experimental groups reported growth in their children’s sign pro- duction across laboratory visits, those in the control condition did not. A follow-up analysis that excluded the control condition revealed only a main effect of laboratory visit, Λ = .43, F(3, 63) = 28.14, p < .0005, partial g 2 = .57, suggesting that the expo- sure conditions did not differ reliably from each other. Follow-up one-way ANOVAs comparing the four conditions for each laboratory visit indepen- dently revealed no condition effects at baseline or after 1 week of exposure, but a reliable condition effect after 2 weeks, F(3, 88) = 6.04, p = .001, and 3 weeks of exposure, F(3, 88) = 11.05, p < .0005, suggesting that parents in the experimental condi- tions began to observe evidence of learning after 2 weeks of exposure. Post hoc analysis using both Tamhane (to adjust for violation of homogeneity given that parents never reported any sign produc- tion in the control group) and Tukey’s honestly sig- nificant difference (HSD) test indicated that all three experimental conditions differed from control after 2 weeks’ exposure. None of the experimental conditions differed reliably from each other at any laboratory visit, although the difference between co- viewing and video alone approached significance at Laboratory Visit 3 (Tukey’s p = .064).

Word Learning

We predicted that acquisition of verbal labels for the included objects would increase over time at this age in all four conditions, due to incidental daily exposure. However, exposure to the baby signs also enhanced exposure to the accompanying verbal labels. To assess whether heightened exposure to the verbal labels in the sign exposure conditions acceler- ated word learning, we conducted an ANOVA on parent report of children’s word production for these 18 items with condition as a between-subject variable and laboratory visit (baseline, 1, 2, 3) as a

Infants’ Learning From Videos 805

within-subjects variable. As expected, there was a main effect of laboratory visit indicating vocabulary growth over time, Λ = .47, F(3, 86) = 31.67, p < .0005, partial g 2 = .52. However, there was no effect of condition and no interaction (see Figure 2).

Sign Retention

We conducted a one-way ANOVA to assess con- dition differences in sign retention as indicated by parental report at Laboratory Visit 4 (following the

1-week retention interval). This analysis yielded a significant condition effect, F(3, 87) = 14.68, p < .0005. Post hoc analysis using Tamhane revealed significant differences between the experi- mental groups and the control group (m = .0116), p < .01, but no differences among experimental groups. Tukey’s HSD, a less conservative measure, indicated that parents of infants in the coviewing condition (m = .442) group reported that their infants produced significantly more of the signs than those in the video-alone condition (m = .242),

0.50

Pr op

or on

S ig

ns P

ro du

ce d 0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00

Video Alone Co-Viewing Parent Instruc on No Exposure

Baseline Week 1 Week 2 Week 3

Figure 1. Mean proportion of signs accumulated across sessions in each condition, based on parental report. Error bars indicate confi- dence intervals (95%).

0.50

Pr op

or on

W or

ds P

ro du

ce d

0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00 Baseline Week 1 Week 2 Week 3

Video Alone Co-Viewing Parent Instruc on No Exposure

Figure 2. Mean proportion of words accumulated across sessions in each condition, based on parental report. Error bars indicate confi- dence interval (95%).

806 Dayanim and Namy

p = .025. Parents reported an intermediate level of sign production in the parent instruction condition (m = .310) that did not differ reliably from either of the other sign exposure conditions.

Forced-Choice Assessment

The proportion of forced-choice trials (of six) on which infants selected the target picture was calculated for each laboratory visit. Given the longi- tudinal nature of the study, there were occasional missing data points due either to a missed labora- tory visit or infant fussiness. Overall, there were a total of 21 missing data points of 460 planned labo- ratory visits (< 5%). These missing laboratory visits were distributed across 19 participants (1 in the video alone, 12 in the coviewing, 4 in the parent instruction, and 4 in the control condition). Missing data points were replaced by the mean of the remaining children in the same condition for the same laboratory visit (see Parent, 2013; Rubin, Wit- kiewitz, St. Andre, & Riley, 2007, for support for this approach).

Sign Learning

We conducted two sets of analyses on the labo- ratory-based forced-choice sign learning task. We compared performance in the experimental groups both to performance in the control condition and to chance (random, 50%) responding. We compared the performance of each condition (including the

0.75

0.70

0.65

0.60

0.55

0.50

0.45

0.40

0.35

0.30

Video Alone Co-Viewing

Pr op

or �

on T

ar ge

t Se

le ct

ed

control condition) to chance using single-sample t tests. Comparisons to the control condition (and among experimental conditions) involved two-way Condition 9 Laboratory Visit ANOVAs.

Comparisons to chance indicated, as expected, that control performance did not differ from chance at any laboratory visit. Children in the video-alone condition responded at chance at the baseline visit and after 1 and 2 weeks of exposure but performed at above chance rates after 3 weeks of viewing, t(19) = 4.15, p = .001. In the coviewing condition, the same pattern was observed with performance above chance only at Laboratory Visit 3, t(26) = 2.51, p = .018. The parent instruction group exhib- ited chance performance at baseline and Laboratory Visits 1 through 3, performing marginally above chance in Laboratory Visit 3, t(20) = 2.05, p = .053.

An ANOVA with condition as a between-subject factor and laboratory visit (baseline, 1, 2, 3) as a within-subject factor yielded a main effect of labora- tory visit, Λ = .90, F(3, 86) = 3.01, p = .035, partial g 2 = .09, indicating overall improvement with expo- sure. There was also a marginal effect of condition, F(3, 88) = 2.17, p = .097, partial g 2 = .07 (see Figure 3). The interaction was not significant, Λ = .89, F(9, 88) = 1.13, p = .342, partial g 2 = .04. Post hoc analysis using Tukey’s HSD indicated that the marginal main effect of condition was driven by a reliable overall difference between the video-alone scores (M = .55, SD = .16) and the control condition scores (M = .49, SD = .18), p = .049. No other pair- wise condition differences were significant.

Parent Instruc�on No Exposure

Baseline Week 1 Week 2 Week 3

Figure 3. Mean proportion of target selected across sessions in each condition, based on forced-choice task. Error bars indicate confi- dence interval (95%). Chance = .50.

Infants’ Learning From Videos 807

Comparing Parent Report and Forced-Choice Measures

Parent report of infants’ signing and performance in the forced-choice task at Laboratory Visit 3 were marginally significantly correlated collapsed across all conditions, r(84) = .178, p = .10. However, this correlation was nonsignificant when infants in the control condition were removed from the analysis, r(61) = .049, p = .70.

Sign Retention

We conducted a separate analysis of performance on the forced-choice task at Laboratory Visit 4 after a 1-week delay during which children were not exposed to the baby signs. Comparisons to chance indicated that only those in the parent instruction group performed significantly above chance after a 1-week retention interval, t(19) = 2.85, p = .010. A one-way ANOVA revealed no reliable differences across conditions at this laboratory visit (see Fig- ure 4a).

At the sign retention session, there was a signifi- cant correlation between parent report and perfor- mance on the forced-choice task collapsed across all conditions, r(84) = .247, p = .022. The correlation remained marginally significant when infants in the control condition were removed from the analysis, r(62) = .202, p = .11.

Elicited Production as a Measure of Sign Retention

Performance on the elicited production task administered at the final Laboratory Visit (after a 1-week delay with no exposure) was measured based on the proportion of signs elicited that infants produced. Children’s mean production across conditions is reported in Figure 4b. Because only five infants completed the task in the no-expo- sure control condition and none of those infants produced any signs, we did not analyze the data from this condition further. Single-sample t tests comparing each experimental condition to the expected population mean of zero (representing no knowledge of the target signs) indicated that infants in all three experimental groups showed significant evidence of learning (ts = 5.47, 5.94, and 6.93 for the video-alone, coviewing, and parent instruction conditions, respectively, all ps < .0005). A one-way ANOVA with condition (video alone, coviewing, and parent instruction) as a between-subjects vari- able revealed no significant differences in rates of elicited sign production across the sign exposure conditions, F(2, 52) = .18, p = .832.

Among those infants who participated in the elicited production task, 82% of video-alone infants (n = 16) and 100% of those in the coviewing (n = 23) and parental instruction groups (n = 17) produced at least one sign successfully. However, performance in the elicited production task was not correlated with either parent report, r(53) = �.039, p = .778, or forced-choice performance, r(52) = .004, p = .978, at Laboratory Visit 4 (collapsed across experimental conditions), suggesting that the pro- duction task may better serve as an existence proof for learning than an accurate index of how many signs were retained.

Discussion

These data indicate that infants under the age of 2 can learn baby signs from video, even without the support of parents during viewing. Parent report and laboratory-based assessments revealed striking evidence of learning after 3 weeks of exposure (12 viewings) in all three experimental conditions. The evidence for sign retention was mixed. The forced- choice measure suggested that only those in the parent instruction condition retained the signs after a week without exposure. However, infants in all three experimental conditions reliably produced signs in the laboratory after a 1-week delay. Because production is typically considered the more conservative measure, and evidence of production clearly implies comprehension, it appears that infants in all three exposure conditions retained at least some sign knowledge over a delay. However, given that the production measure relies on perfor- mative factors such as fatigue and shyness, it is not likely to be the most sensitive index of variability in retention across conditions. The absence of correla- tions between elicited production and either the parent report or forced-choice assessment under- scores that the production measure was a less sensi- tive index.

Interestingly, the more sensitive forced-choice data suggest that children in the parental instruc- tion condition exhibited a “sleeper” effect, exhibit- ing marginally above-chance performance in the forced-choice task after 3 weeks’ exposure but robust evidence of learning after an additional week without exposure. The superior performance of the parent instruction condition relative to the video-viewing conditions after a delay may reflect a video deficit in retention after as little as 1 week. Taken together, the findings from this study sug- gest the potential for video-based learning but hint

808 Dayanim and Namy

(a)

1.00

0.90

0.80

0.70

0.60

0.50

0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00

(b)

1.00

0.90

0.80

0.70

0.60

0.50

0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00

Video Alone Co-Viewing Parent Instruc�on No Exposure

* *

*

Video Alone Co-Viewing Parent Instruc�on No Exposure

Figure 4. (a) Mean proportion of target selected after a 1-week delay, based on forced-choice task. Error bars indicate confidence inter- val (95%). Chance = .50. (b) Mean proportion of elicited signs produced after a 1-week delay. Error bars indicate standard error. *Indi- cates reliable difference from zero, indicating learning (p < .001).

that the most robust retention occurs following tra- ditional parent instruction.

The parental report data echoed the laboratory- based evidence suggesting learning across all expo- sure conditions. According to parent report, all three sign exposure groups exhibited learning after 3 weeks’ exposure. The two parent-supported groups (i.e., coviewing and parental instruction) reported numerically, but not statistically, higher rates of learning than those who viewed videos alone, according to parental report. This evidence of more robust learning in parentally supported learning environments was predicted and may imply that the medium through which information

is presented is less critical to infant learning than the involvement of a parent in the learning endeavor. However, the fact that these differences emerged only in the parental report measure raises the possibility that this outcome may be due, at least in part, to either greater sensitivity to sign pro- duction or over-reporting among parents who had participated in the learning sessions.

Although we anticipated that the infants in the parent instruction condition would demonstrate evidence of learning, it is worth noting that parents in this condition reported that they found the instructional sessions challenging. The task may not have been especially naturalistic, given that parents

Infants’ Learning From Videos 809

needed to simultaneously manipulate the book, sus- tain their infants’ attention, and track which signs to use. That the parents were teaching material with which they were not especially familiar may also have limited their consistency or comfort with producing the signs during interactions with their infants. In contrast, the adults on the commercial videos were adept signers. This, in conjunction with the more dynamic information included in the vid- eos, may actually have limited learning potential in the parent instruction condition (Simcock, Garrity, & Barr, 2011).

It is notable that infants whose parents sup- ported learning were successful at acquiring signs from both picture books and videos. However, our most surprising finding is that those in the video- alone condition learned the signs as well. There are several factors that may have contributed to learn- ing in this condition. The first is that infants were exposed to the videos repeatedly over the course of the study and repetition seems to support learning from video (Barr, Muentener, & Garcia, 2007; Barr, Muentener, Garcia, Fujimoto, & Ch�avez, 2007; Strouse & Troseth, 2008). In addition, although signs serve the same communicative functions as words, they are based on manual movement; Numerous imitation studies demonstrate infants’ ability to learn a sequence of movement from a screen (Barr & Hayne, 1999; Barr, Muentener, & Garcia, 2007; Barr, Muentener, Garcia, Fujimoto, et al., 2007; Barr, Shuck, Salerno, Atkinson, & Linebarger, 2010; Barr & Wyss, 2008; Hayne, Her- bert, & Simcock, 2003; Meltzoff, 1988a, 1988b; Strouse & Troseth, 2008). Furthermore, verbal labels, included in the elicited production task, may have served as reminders for the movements (Barr & Wyss, 2008; Hayne & Herbert, 2004; Khu, Gra- ham, & Ganea, 2013). Although signs did serve as labels in this context, it may be that this manual form of labeling is easier to learn from the screen than is verbal labeling. Furthermore, the familiarity with the words and objects may have scaffolded learning by drawing infants’ attention to the move- ment associated with the familiar word and referent (Strouse & Troseth, 2014). The fact that viewing alone did not require infants to divide their visual attention between the screen and the parent might also have aided learning in this context (Strouse & Troseth, 2014).

Although not a direct goal of our study, we also tracked word learning across laboratory visits via parent report. As we anticipated, word learn- ing increased over time for the stimulus items involved in this study, but the rate was consistent

across all conditions, including the no-exposure control condition. This outcome replicates previous longitudinal studies suggesting no enhanced word learning following 4 weeks of exposure to a com- mercial video as measured by parent report (see Robb et al., 2009) and forced-choice assessments (see DeLoache et al., 2010). That the parent instruc- tion condition did not show accelerated learning relative to the video viewing conditions differs from DeLoache et al.’s (2010) findings. This may have been due to the lack of emphasis on verbal labels in this study, or to the more limited dura- tion and frequency of exposure that we employed relative to DeLoache et al. Because these words are frequent in input to children, it may be that the degree of enhanced exposure employed in our study was either insufficient or unnecessary to impact the rate of word learning. However, the dissociation between word learning and gesture learning raises important questions for future research regarding how video learning varies for different learning materials. Of particular interest is whether the visual versus auditory modality impacts the relative efficacy of video versus live instruction (see Brito, Barr, McIntyre, & Simcock, 2012; Simcock et al., 2011, for additional discussion of this issue).

Conclusion

This experimentally controlled, longitudinal investigation reveals that, at least for some stimuli and some video formats, infants exhibit a surprising ability to acquire information obtained via video viewing. These findings bolster Vandewater’s (2011) findings that infants’ communicative repertoire can be expanded through video exposure, and add to the literature by generalizing to sign learning and to production measures. Although the effects were nominally more robust in the parent-supported learning conditions, even infants who viewed vid- eos alone exhibited clear evidence of learning over the course of 3 weeks’ exposure. Because infants viewed multiple presentation formats, we cannot determine how format or formal features (e.g., use of foreground music vs. background music vs. no music) impact learning. Likewise, we cannot deter- mine the optimal duration or frequency of exposure to facilitate learning. This study also does not address the potential risks associated with exposure to media. Nevertheless, we find clear and compel- ling evidence that, at least for baby signs, videos constitute one possible instructional medium for infants.

810 Dayanim and Namy

References

Acredolo, L. P., & Goodwyn, S. (1988). Symbolic gestur- ing in normal infants. Child Development, 59, 450–466. doi:10.2307/1130324

American Academy of Pediatrics. (1999). Media educa- tion. Pediatrics, 104, 341–343. doi:10.1542/peds.2010- 1636

American Academy of Pediatrics. (2011). Media use by children younger than 2 years. Council on Communica- tions and Media. Pediatrics, 128, 1040–1045. doi:10. 1542/peds.2011-1753

Anderson, D. R., Huston, A. C., Schmitt, K. L., Linebar- ger, D. L., & Wright, J. C. (2001). Early childhood tele- vision viewing and adolescent behavior: The recontact study. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 66(1, Serial No. 264). doi:10.1111/1540- 5834.00120

Anderson, D. R., & Pempek, T. A. (2005). Television and very young children. American Behavioral Scientist, 48, 505–522. doi:10.1177/0002764204271506

Barr, R., & Hayne, H. (1999). Developmental changes in imitation from television during infancy. Child Develop- ment, 70, 1067–1081. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00079

Barr, R., Muentener, P., & Garcia, A. (2007). Age-related changes in deferred imitation from television by 6- to 18-month-olds. Developmental Science, 10, 910–921. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2007.00641.x

Barr, R., Muentener, P., Garcia, A., Fujimoto, M., & Ch�avez, V. (2007). The effect of repetition on imitation from television during infancy. Developmental Psychobi- ology, 49, 196–207. doi:10.1002/dev.20208

Barr, R., Shuck, L., Salerno, K., Atkinson, E., & Linebar- ger, D. L. (2010). Music interferes with learning from television during infancy. Infant and Child Development, 19, 313–331. doi:10.1002/icd.666

Barr, R., & Wyss, N. (2008). Reenactment of televised con- tent by 2-year olds: Toddlers use language learned from television to solve a difficult imitation problem. Infant Behavior & Development, 31, 696–703. doi:10.1016/ j.infbeh.2008.04.006

Barr, R., Zack, E., Muentener, P., & Garcia, A. (2008). Infants’ attention and responsiveness to television increases with prior exposure and parental interaction. Infancy, 13, 3–56. doi:10.1080/15250000701779378

Brito, N., Barr, R., McIntyre, P., & Simcock, G. (2012). Long-term transfer of learning from books and video during toddlerhood. Journal of Experimental Child Psy- chology, 111, 108–119. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2011.08.004

Chonchaiya, W., & Pruksananonda, C. (2008). Television viewing associates with delayed language develop- ment. Acta Paediatrica, 97, 977–982. doi:10.1111/j.1651- 2227.2008.00831.x

DeLoache, J. S., Chiong, C., Sherman, K., Islam, N., Van- derborght, M., Troseth, G. L., & O’Doherty, K. (2010). Do babies learn from baby media? Psychological Science, 21, 1570–1574. doi:10.1177/0956797610384145

Fender, J. G., Richert, R. A., Robb, M. B., & Wartella, E. (2010). Parent teaching focus and toddlers’ learning

from an infant DVD. Infant and Child Development, 19, 613–627. doi:10.1002/icd

Fenson, L., Dale, P. S., Reznick, J., Bates, E., Thal, D. J., Pethick, S. J., . . . Stiles, J. (1994). Variability in early communicative development. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 59(5, Serial No. 242). doi:10.2307/1166093

Fidler, A. E., Zack, E., & Barr, R. (2010). Television view- ing patterns in 6- to 18- month olds: The role of care- giver–infant interactional quality. Infancy, 15, 176–196. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7078.2009.00013.x

Hayne, H., & Herbert, J. (2004). Verbal cues facilitate mem- ory retrieval during infancy. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 89, 127–139. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2004.06.002

Hayne, H., Herbert, J., & Simcock, G. (2003). Imitation from television by 24- and 30-month-olds. Developmen- tal Science, 6, 254–261. doi:10.1111/1467-7687.00281

Khu, M., Graham, S. A., & Ganea, P. A. (2013). Learning from picture books: Infants’ use of naming information. Frontiers In Psychology, 5, Article 144. doi:10.3389/ fpsyg.2014.00144

Krcmar, M. (2011). Word learning in very young children from infant-directed DVDs. Journal of Communication, 61, 780–794. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01561.x

Krcmar, M., Grela, B., & Lin, K. (2007). Can toddlers learn vocabulary from television? An experimental approach. Media Psychology, 10, 41–63. doi:10.1080/ 15213260701300931

Lemish, D. (1987). Viewers in diapers: The early develop- ment of television viewing. In T. R. Lindlof (Ed.), Natu- ral audiences: Qualitative research of media uses and effects (pp. 33–57). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Lemish, D., & Rice, M. L. (1986). Television as a talking picture book: A prop for language acquisition. Journal of Child Language, 13, 251–274. doi:10.1017/ S0305000900008047

Linebarger, D. L., & Walker, D. (2005). Infants’ and toddlers’ television viewing and language outcomes. American Behavioral Scientist, 48, 624–645. doi:10.1177/ 0002764204271505

Meltzoff, A. N. (1988a). Imitation of televised models by infants. Child Development, 59, 1221–1229. doi:10.2307/ 1130485

Meltzoff, A. N. (1988b). Infant imitation after a 1-week delay: Long-term memory for novel acts and multiple stimuli. Developmental Psychology, 24, 470–476. doi:10. 1037/0012-1649.24.4.470

Naigles, L. R., & Mayeux, L. (2001). Television as inciden- tal language teacher. In D. G. Singer & J. I. Singer (Eds.), Handbook of children and the media (pp. 135–152). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Namy, L. L. (2001). What’s in a name when it isn’t a word? 17-month-olds’ mapping of nonverbal symbols to object categories. Infancy, 2, 73–86. doi:10.1207/ S15327078IN0201_5

Namy, L. L., & Waxman, S. R. (1998). Words and sym- bolic gestures: Infants’ interpretations of different forms of symbolic reference. Child Development, 69, 295–308. doi:10.2307/1132165

Parent, M. C. (2013). Handling item-level missing data: Simpler is just as good. The Counseling Psychologist, 41, 568–600. doi:10.1177/0011000012445176

Reiser, R. A., Williamson, N., & Suzuki, K. (1988). Using “Sesame Street” to facilitate children’s recognition of letters and numbers. Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 36, 15–21. Retrieved from http:// www.jstor.org/stable/30218232

Rice, M. L., Huston, A. C., Truglio, R., & Wright, J. (1990). Words from Sesame Street: Learning vocabulary while viewing. Developmental Psychology, 26, 421–428. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.26.3.421

Robb, M., Richert, R., & Wartella, E. (2009). Just a talking book? Word learning from watching baby videos. Brit- ish Journal of Developmental Psychology, 27, 27–45. doi:10. 1348/026151008X320156

Roseberry, S., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Parish-Morris, J., & Go- linkoff, R. M. (2009). Live action: Can young children learn verbs from video? Child Development, 80, 1360– 1375. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01338.x

Rubin, L. H., Witkiewitz, K., St. Andre, J., & Riley, S. (2007). Methods for handling missing data in the behavioral neurosciences: Don’t throw the baby rat out with the bath water. Journal of Undergraduate Neuro- science Education, 5, A71–A77. Retrieved from http:// www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3592650/

Schmitt, K., & Anderson, D. (2002). Television and reality: Toddler’s use of visual information from video to guide behavior. Media Psychology, 4, 51–76. doi:10.1207/ S1532785XMEP0401_03

Simcock, G., Garrity, K., & Barr, R. (2011). The effect of narrative cues on infants’ imitation from television and picture books. Child Development, 82, 1607–1619. doi:10. 1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01636.x

Singer, J. L., & Singer, D. G. (1998). Barney & Friends as entertainment and education: Evaluating the quality and effectiveness of a television series for preschool children. In J. Asamen & G. L. Berry (Eds.), Research paradigms, television, and social behavior (pp. 305–367). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Strouse, G. A., O’Doherty, K., & Troseth, G. L. (2013). Effective coviewing: Preschoolers’ learning from video

Infants’ Learning From Videos 811

after a dialogic questioning intervention. Developmental Psychology, 49, 2368–2382. doi:10.1037/a0032463

Strouse, G. A., & Troseth, G. L. (2008). “Don’t try this at home”: Toddlers’ imitation of new skills from people on video. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 101, 262–280. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2008.05.010

Strouse, G. A., & Troseth, G. L. (2014). Supporting toddlers’ transfer of word learning from video. Cognitive Develop- ment, 30, 47–64. doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2014.01.002

Vaala, S., Linebarger, D. L., Fenstermacher, S., Tedone, A., Brey, E., Barr, R., . . . Calvert, S. L. (2010). Content analysis of language-promoting teaching strategies used in infant directed media? Infant and Child Development, 19, 628–648. doi:10.1002/icd.715

Vandewater, E. A. (2011). Infant word learning from com- mercially available video in the US. Journal of Children and Media, 5, 248–266. doi:10.1080/17482798.2011.584375

Vandewater, E., Barr, R., Park, S. E., & Lee, S. J. (2010). A US study of transfer of learning from video to books in toddlers. Journal of Children and Media, 4, 451–467. doi:10.1080/17482798.2010.510013

Zimmerman, F. J., Christakis, D. A., & Meltzoff, A. N. (2007a). Associations between media viewing and language development in children under age 2 years. Journal of Pediatrics, 151, 364–368. doi:10.1016/j.jpeds. 2007.04.071

Zimmerman, F. J., Christakis, D. A., & Meltzoff, A. N. (2007b). Television and DVD/video viewing in children younger than two years. Archives of Pediatric and Adoles- cent Medicine, 161, 473–479. doi:10.1001/archpedi.161.5. 473

Supporting Information

Additional supporting information may be found in the online version of this article at the publisher’s website:

Appendix S1. Example Pages From Picture Book for the Target Signs “Car,” “Cat,” and “Fish”

Appendix S2. Vocabulary Checklist

This document is a scanned copy of a printed document. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material.