Examining Scientific Content in Media Productions for Children: The Case of Aslan's Experiment Room*

Abstract

In this study, 30 videos from an animated production focused on experiments broadcast on television and YouTube were analyzed in terms of the videos' general characteristics, the fictional characteristics of the experiments, laboratory safety and warnings, and the scientific accuracy of the explanations provided in the videos. The researchers first evaluated the videos independently and subsequently conducted a joint qualitative assessment within the scope of predefined research questions. The results regarding the general characteristics of the videos show that only 10% of the video titles reflect the content, 47% of the video descriptions contain non-scientific statements, 47% of the experiments were designed as open-ended. In addition, 37% of the experiments had an inappropriate initial question, and 63% of the experiments did not answer the initial question in the video. Furthermore, variables were modified in only 43% of the experiments, and in more than half of these, the variables were not modified appropriately; inappropriate materials were used in 27% of the experiments; and realistic results were obtained in only 30% of the experiments. Results related to laboratory safety and warnings show that, despite the necessary warnings being given in all experiments, hazardous materials were used in approximately half of them. Results related to explanations in the videos show that 77% of the videos contained scientific inaccuracies. In order to ensure that children develop accurate perceptions of science, productions of this kind should be developed with expert consultation and scientific oversight.

Keywords

• Digital materials
• Media productions
• Science experiments
• Science teaching

Çocuklara Yönelik Medya Yapımlarında Bilimsel İçeriklerin İncelenmesi: Aslan’ın Deney Odası Örneği

Abstract

Bu çalışmada, televizyonda ve YouTube üzerinde yayınlanan deneylere odaklanmış bir animasyon yapımının 30 videosu; videonun genel özellikleri, deneylerin kurgusal özellikleri, laboratuvar güvenliği ve uyarılar ile videolardaki açıklamalar açısından analiz edilmiştir. Araştırmacılar, önceden belirlenen araştırma soruları kapsamında videoları önce ayrı daha sonra da bir araya gelerek nitel olarak değerlendirmişlerdir. Videoların genel özelliklerine ilişkin sonuçlar, video başlıklarının yalnızca %10'unun içeriği yansıttığını ve video açıklamalarının %47'sinin bilimsel olmayan ifadeler içerdiğini, deneylerin %47'sinin açık uçlu tipte tasarlandığını, deneylerin %37'sinde başlangıç sorusunun uygun olmadığını ve deneylerin %63'ünde başlangıç sorusunun videoda yanıtlanmadığını göstermektedir. Ayrıca, deneylerin sadece %43'ünde değişkenler değiştirilmiş ve bunların yarısından fazlasında değişkenler uygun şekilde değiştirilmemiştir, deneylerin %27'sinde uygun olmayan malzemeler kullanılmış ve deneylerin sadece %30'unda gerçekçi sonuçlar elde edilmiştir. Laboratuvar güvenliği ve uyarılarla ilgili sonuçlar, deneylerin tümünde gerekli uyarılar yapılmasına rağmen yaklaşık yarısında tehlikeli malzemeler kullanıldığını göstermektedir. Videolardaki açıklamalarla ilgili sonuçlar, videoların %77'sinde bilimsel hatalar bulunduğunu göstermektedir. Çocukların bilimle ilgili algılarının doğru oluşabilmesi için bu tür yapımların mutlaka uzman desteği alması gereklidir.

Keywords

• Fen öğretimi
• Dijital materyaller
• Deney
• Medya yapımları

Supporting Institution

Yok.

Ethical Statement

Makalenin her aşamasında etik ilkelere uyulduğunu beyan ederiz.

Thanks

Yok.

References

1. Acar, İ. (2022). Investigation of Science Laboratories in Çorum Province in terms of OHS. [Master's Thesis], Hitit University.
2. Aladé, F., Lauricella, A., Kumar, Y., & Wartella, E. (2020). Who’s modeling STEM for kids? A character analysis of children’s STEM-focused television in the US. Journal of Children and Media, 15(3), 338–357. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2020.1810087
3. Alexander, J. M., Johnson, K. E., & Kelley, K. (2012). Longitudinal analysis of the relations between opportunities to learn about science and the development of interests related to science. Science Education, 96(5), 763–786. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21018
4. Aljohani, S., Wang, J., Scheiman, M., Tan, Q., Xu, H., Almutairi, N., & Alshammeri, S. (2023). The Feasibility of an Educational Cartoon Video for Improving Adherence with Amblyopia Treatment in Children. Clinical Ophthalmology, 17, 1639-1646. https://doi.org/10.2147/opth.s415892
5. Alston, G. D., & Ellis-Hervey, N. (2015). Exploring the nonformal adult educator in twenty-first-century contexts using qualitative video data analysis techniques. Learning, Media and Technology, 40(4), 502-513.
6. Anderson, D. R., Huston, A. C., Schmitt, K. L., Linebarger, D. L., Wright, J. C., & Larson, R. (2001). Early childhood television viewing and adolescent behavior: The recontact study. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 66(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5834.00121
7. Atchia, S., & Gunowa, M. (2024). Use of concept cartoons within the conceptual change model to address students’ misconceptions in biology: a case study. Journal of Biological Education, 59, 162-180. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2024.2308305
8. Ay, T. S., & Korkmaz, Ç. (2017). Sosyal bilgiler programında yer alan değerler ve kültürel ögeler bağlamında “Küçük Hezarfen” çizgi filmi. Batı Anadolu Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 8(2), 49-62.

9. Aydın, M., & Özkara, D. (2011). Determination of science teaching students' misconceptions and knowledge deficiencies about natural electrification in the atmosphere. Journal of Adıyaman University Institute of Social Sciences, 4(6), 11-20.
10. Aydoğdu, C., & Yardımcı, E. (2013). Accidents occuring in elementary science laboratories and behavioral styles that teachers can develop. Hacettepe University Journal of Faculty of Education, 44(44), 52-60.
11. Aytekin, K. O. (2020). Analysis of Science Images Presence in Cartoons (A Turkish TV Channel Case). European Journal of Educational Research, 9(3), 1347-1366. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.9.3.1347
12. Bonus, J. A., Brinberg, M., Dore, R. A., & Coronel, J. C. (2024). A research brief investigating educational television and U.S. children’s interest in science and world culture. Journal of Children and Media, 19(2), 418-430. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2024.2424835
13. Cengiz, Ö., İlçi Küsmüş, G., & Ramazan, O. (2020). Evaluation of cartoons broadcasted on TRT child channel according to developmental areas. Mersin University Journal of Faculty of Education, 16(2), 271-287. https://doi.org/10.17860/mersinefd.633447
14. Ceylan, H. (2012). Analysis of occupational accidents according to the sectors in Turkey, Gazi University Journal of Science, 25(4), 909-918.
15. Chabay, R., and Sherwood, B. (2006). Restructuring the introductory electricity and magnetism course, American Journal of Physics, 74, 329-336.
16. Chatzara, E., Galani, A., & Arhonditsis, G. (2023, September). Spoiler alert! Portrayal of the climate crisis and human response in blockbuster movies: A thematic analysis. The 15th Conference of the European Science Education Research Association (ESERA) Proceedings Book Series-IV pp.236-243.
17. Conole, G., & Alevizou, P. (2010). A literature review of the use of Web 2.0 tools in Higher Education. A report commissioned by the Higher Education Academy.
18. Çelik, F. (2009). The effects of open and closed-ended experiment techniques on students' achievement, attitude and psychomotor behaviors. [Master's Thesis], Selçuk University, Konya. https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12395/178
19. Demir, A., & Öz, A. (2018). Investigation of Work Accidents from a Theological Perspective. European Journal of Science and Technology, 14, 189-197. https://doi.org/10.31590/ejosat.459848
20. Demir, S., & Şahin, F. (2015). Pre-service science teachers' ability to create open-ended experiments. The Journal of Academic Social Science Studies, 33(1), 433-442.
21. Demirtaş, İ. (2013). The effect of animation use on students' academic achievement, retention of learned information and science process skills. Kastamonu Journal of Education, Special Issue, 21 (4), 1287-1304.
22. Diehm, E., Wood, C., Puhlman, J., & Callendar, M. (2020). Young children's narrative retell in response to static and animated stories. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 55, 359 - 372. https://doi.org/10.1111/1460-6984.12523
23. Driver, R., Squires, A., Rushworth, P., & Wood-Robinson, V. (2014). Making Sense of Secondary Science: Research into children's ideas. London, UK: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315747415
24. Elmas, R., & Geban, Ö. (2012). Web 2.0 Tools for 21st Century Teachers. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 4(1), 43-254.
25. Essex, C., Bedford, R., Gliga, T., & Smith, T. (2025). Toddlers Viewing Fantastical Cartoons: Evidence of an Immediate Reduction in Endogenous Control Without an Increase in Stimulus‐Driven Exogenous Control. Developmental Science, 28. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.70008
26. Feeley, T., Keller, M., & Kayler, L. (2022). Using Animated Videos to Increase Patient Knowledge: A Meta-Analytic Review. Health Education & Behavior, 50, 240 - 249. https://doi.org/10.1177/10901981221116791
27. Fisch, S.M. (2004). Children's Learning From Educational Television: Sesame Street and Beyond (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410610553
28. Fusaro, M., & Smith, M. C. (2018). Preschoolers’ inquisitiveness and science-relevant problem solving. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 42, 119–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2017.09.002
29. Gagne, R. M. (1965). The Psychological Basis of Science-A Process Approach. AAAS. Miscellaneous Publication, 65-68.
30. Garg, V. (2024, September 25). Why cartoons are an important tool in teaching. Kashmir Life. https://kashmirlife.net/why-cartoons-are-an-important-tool-in-teaching-361710/
31. Güneş, M. H., Şener, N., Topal-Germi, N. & Can, N. (2013). Teacher and student evaluations of laboratory use in science and technology course. Journal of Dicle University Ziya Gökalp Faculty of Education, 20, 1-11.
32. Güven Yıldırım, E., Önder, A. N., & Önder, İ. (2022). Examining the Fringe Series in terms of science concepts and topics: A teaching material suggestion. Scholars Journal of Research in Social Science (SJRSS), 2(2), 44-54. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.6657821
33. Güvenir, E. & Güven Yıldırım, E. (2023). The effect of educational film supported augmented reality applications on academic achievement and motivation for science learning. Journal of Education in Science, Environment and Health (JESEH), 9(2), 119-130. https://doi.org/10.55549/jeseh.1279771
34. Hortin, J. A., (1980). Visual literacy and visual thinking. ERIC Document. ED214522
35. Ibili, E., & Sahin, S. (2016). The use of cartoons in elementary classrooms: An analysis of teachers behavioral intention in terms of gender. Educational Research Review, 11, 508-516. https://doi.org/10.5897/err2015.2119 Karasar, N. (2003). Scientific research method. Ankara: Nobel.
36. Kaya, Z. (2023). Science Teachers’s and Science Teacher Candidates’s View about Using Cartoon Movies in Science Teaching. Journal of Teacher Education and Lifelong Learning. https://doi.org/10.51535/tell.1228951.
37. Kearney, M. S., & Levine, P. B. (2019). Early Childhood Education by Television: Lessons fromSesame Street. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 11(1), 318–350. https://doi.org/10.1257/app.20170300
38. Keşşafoğlu, D., Küntay, A., & Uzundağ, B. (2024). Immediate and delayed effects of fantastical content on children's executive functions and mental transformation. Journal of experimental child psychology, 248, 106067 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2024.106067
39. Kılıç, M.S., & Aydın, A. (2018). Examining teachers' views on laboratory practices within the scope of science course with the help of the theory of planned behavior. Kastamonu Journal of Education, 26(1), 1-6.
40. Kızılcık, H. Ş. (2021). Does binding energy bind? Physics Education, 56(3), 033005, 1-3. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6552/abe5b7
41. Kızılcık, H. Ş., Çağan, S. & Ünlü Yavaş, P. (2019). Ninth grade students' level of recognition of physics laboratory materials. İlköğretim-Online, 18(1), 190-206. http://doi.org/10.17051/ilkonline.2019.527198
42. Kızılcık, H. Ş., Damlı, V. & Ünsal, Y. (2014). Physics in movies: Awareness levels of teacher candidates. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 10(6), 681-690. http://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2014.1228a
43. Kulgemeyer, C., Wittwer, J. Misconceptions in Physics Explainer Videos and the Illusion of Understanding: an Experimental Study. Int J of Sci and Math Educ 21, 417-437 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-022-10265-7
44. Kücükali T. (2023). Evaluation of cartoons and animated films in the context of visual learning regarding science education and science teaching, [Master's Thesis], Marmara University Institute of Educational Sciences, Istanbul, Turkey.
45. Kwangmuang, P., Jarutkamolpong, S., Duangngern, P., Gessala, N., & Sarakan, P. (2024). Promoting Analytical Thinking Skills Development in Elementary School Students through Animated Cartoons. Computers in Human Behavior Reports. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2024.100467
46. Lucena, P., & Perticarrari, A. (2020). (Re)Significados Das Ciências Biológicas: Análise Do Processo De Semiose Do Conceito De Camuflagem Em Desenhos Animados. Investigações Em Ensino De Ciências, 25(2), 122-147. https://doi.org/10.22600/1518-8795.ienci2020v25n2p122
47. Maichle, U. (1981). Representation of knowledge in basic electricity and its use for problem-solving. In W. Jung, J. Pfundt, & C. von Rhoneck (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Workshop on Problems concerning students' representation of physics and chemistry knowledge (pp. 174- 193), September 14-16 (Pedagogische Hochschule, Ludwigsburg).
48. McBride, K. K. (2016). Linking Science Fiction and Physics Courses. The Physics Teacher, 54, 280-284. doi: 10.1119/1.4947155
49. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative Research Case Study Applications in Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
50. Nakiboğlu, N., & Nakiboğlu, C. (2016). University students' understanding of density and concentration: A cross-level investigation. The Eurasia Proceedings of Educational and Social Sciences, 4, 550-553. Retrieved from https://epess.net/index.php/epess/article/view/233
51. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K–12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. The National Academies Press.
52. Önal, H. (2023). An effective, entertaining and interesting tool to identify students' misconceptions: The concept cartoons. Southeast Asia Early Childhood Journal, 12(2), 20-34. https://doi.org/10.37134/saecj.vol12.2.2.2023
53. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon 9 (5), 1-6.
54. Quan, F. (2024). Current Situation and Challenges of Safety Management of Chemical Laboratories in Universities: Problems and Countermeasures. Journal of Innovation and Development, 7(1), 62-65 https://doi.org/10.54097/0z496n84
55. Ratnani, S. (2024). Addressing Safety in Chemistry Laboratory Through Case Studies. Resonance, 28, 1763–1771. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12045-023-1710-5
56. Sanalan, V. A., Sülün, A., & Çoban, T. A. (2007). Visual literacy. Journal of Erzincan University Faculty of Education, 9(2), 33-47.
57. Silander, M., Grindal, T., Gerard, S. N., & Salone, T. (2025). Learning Science and Engineering From Videos and Games: A Randomized Trial of PBS KIDS The Cat in the Hat Knows a Lot About That! Educational Researcher, 54(6), 305-317. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X251327187
58. Silander, M., Grindal, T., Hupert, N., Garcia, E., Anderson, K., Vahey, P., & Pasnik, S. (2018). What parents talk about when they talk about learning: A national survey about young children and Science. Education Development Center, Inc., & SRI International.
59. TRT Çocuk (2023b). Aslan'in Experiment Room, Retrieved from https://www.trtcocuk.net.tr/aslanin-deney-odasi on August 11, 2023.
60. TRT Kids (2023a). Aslan's Experiment Room Playlist [Official YouTube Channel]. YouTube. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/@trtcocuk/playlists on August 11, 2023.
61. Wu, Y., Lin, M., & Yao, W. (2024). The Influence of Titles on YouTube Trending Videos. Communications in Humanities Research, 29, 285-294. https://doi.org/10.54254/2753-7064/29/20230835
62. Yadav, S., & Chakraborty, P. (2025). Interaction of Children Aged 4 to 10 Years With YouTube Videos Played on a Smartphone. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 2499878, pp.11. https://doi.org/10.1155/hbe2/2499878
63. Yener, D., Yılmaz, M., & Kara, G. (2021). Çizgi Filmlerde Fen-Mühendislik Girişimcilik Uygulamaları: Aslan Örneği. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, (59), 1-29. http://doi.org/10.21764/ maeuefd.839770
64. Yenilmez, K. & Yaşa, E. (2008). Primary School Students' Misconceptions in Geometry. Journal of Uludağ University Faculty of Education, 21(2), 461-483.