COMMENTS: 2
Forty Years After Its First Episode, Sesame Street Is Still Saving the World
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Media and Culture headlines via email.
In the four decades since its premiere on Nov. 10, 1969, Sesame Street has been the subject of enough scholarly studies to give Big Bird a lifetime of nest-making material. Leafing through the literature is like letting the Cookie Monster loose in a Mrs. Fields franchise: You delve in excitedly before realizing there's more here than any single creature can digest.
The nexus between Sesame Street and academic research predates the debut of the classic children's show. In 1967, Joan Ganz Cooney, a producer at New York City's "educational" (soon to be "public") television station, Channel 13, wrote a seminal paper titled "The Potential Uses of Television in Preschool Education." Submitted to a receptive Carnegie Foundation in February 1968, the report summarizes the scant research that had been done on young children and television up to that time and described Cooney's interviews with educators and child psychologists, who shared their varied visions of an educational program for 3- to 5-year-olds.
"Nearly everyone I met liked the idea of a daily, hour-long program," she wrote. "Almost all of them wanted the letters of the alphabet and their sounds, as well as numbers, included." One month later, the Children's Television Workshop (later renamed the Sesame Workshop) was founded, with Cooney as executive director. The University of Michigan's Edward Palmer was hired as vice president for research (a position, one can safely assume, that was never created for the Howdy Doody show).
According to his 1999 New York Times obituary, "Palmer's findings indicated that children took delight in watching other children and animals, that they liked music and slapstick, wanted characters to be kind to one another, and were bored by talking adults." Incorporating his results and the insights of child development experts, producers of the nascent program — with the invaluable help of Jim Henson and his Muppets — created its remarkably durable structure.
Given its research base, it's not surprising that academics began studying Sesame Street's impact virtually as soon as it went on the air. In 1972, a summary of this early research was published in the Journal of Special Education. The consensus, according to the University of Pennsylvania's Janet Rogers, was that the show was "highly successful" in meeting its goal of preparing children for school. "Children who have watched Sesame Street are more interested in what teachers are trying to teach and have superior concentration to that of their peers," she wrote. An early study of nearly 1,000 3- to 5-year-olds conducted by Educational Television Service found that those who had watched the show outperformed their peers in terms of both specific skills and vocabulary, adding that "children who watched the most learned the most."
But more than a few academics played the role of Oscar the Grouch, complaining that the show "was too far removed from structured teaching" or "borrowed too heavily from high-pressure patterns of commercial TV." John Holt, author of How Children Learn, wrote a detailed critique of the program for the May 1971 issue of The Atlantic. In it, he complained that it "has aimed too low," especially in terms of introducing kids to the concept of writing. Children, he asserted, should be taught that writing is an extension of speech — something that could be done by showing words on the screen as they are being spoken. Cooney conceded this was sound criticism and tweaked the program accordingly, thus establishing the pattern of letting the show evolve as new research produces fresh ideas.
Stay up to date with the latest Media and Culture headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: goodsensecynic on Nov 22, 2009 7:32 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Still, there's a problem. While there is little doubt that Sesame Street teaches letters and numbers and non-violent dispute resolution, it mainly teaches children how to watch TV, how to accept reality as fragmented and segmented rather than continuous and chronological. It separates vignettes with "jolts" every minute or two, thus acclimatizing young viewers to a world of ... commercials.
As my late compatriot Marshall McLuhan said almost fifty years ago, "the medium is the message." So, I hate to say, maybe "Reality Shows" are the unintended consequences of Jim Henson's triumph.
True, I'd rather have children learning the virtues of kindness and cooperation than taking their lessons from pre-adolescent thugs on street corners and rats in tenement hallways; but, before I shout an unqualified "Hooray" for this well-intentioned project, I'd like to know what an fMRI says about the brain patterns of chronic television watchers in the pre-school set, and whether they read (or want to read) anything more compelling than a tweet when they turn thirteen.
Or, is literacy truly a lost cause, when everyone from the talking heads at CNN to US Senators delight in their 140-character discourses?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: K.J. on Nov 23, 2009 8:46 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If the credit for the viewers' gains go to Ernie and Bert, how come they are rarely even seen? And no Kermit whatsoever. WTF? Whole episodes go by without a glimpse of Big Bird, so they can bring us the new dippy female characters, neurotic Telly Monster, and whiny Baby Bear.
I could forgive it for not being the show I grew up on--if it had any significant qualities or charms left. But those moments are few and far between.
Don't waste your time on the current version, which is Sesame Street in name only. Get the "Old School" shows, full episodes, on DVD. The vision there is clear. Some of it's creaky, but at least it's not crap.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: goodsensecynic on Nov 22, 2009 7:32 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Still, there's a problem. While there is little doubt that Sesame Street teaches letters and numbers and non-violent dispute resolution, it mainly teaches children how to watch TV, how to accept reality as fragmented and segmented rather than continuous and chronological. It separates vignettes with "jolts" every minute or two, thus acclimatizing young viewers to a world of ... commercials.
As my late compatriot Marshall McLuhan said almost fifty years ago, "the medium is the message." So, I hate to say, maybe "Reality Shows" are the unintended consequences of Jim Henson's triumph.
True, I'd rather have children learning the virtues of kindness and cooperation than taking their lessons from pre-adolescent thugs on street corners and rats in tenement hallways; but, before I shout an unqualified "Hooray" for this well-intentioned project, I'd like to know what an fMRI says about the brain patterns of chronic television watchers in the pre-school set, and whether they read (or want to read) anything more compelling than a tweet when they turn thirteen.
Or, is literacy truly a lost cause, when everyone from the talking heads at CNN to US Senators delight in their 140-character discourses?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: K.J. on Nov 23, 2009 8:46 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If the credit for the viewers' gains go to Ernie and Bert, how come they are rarely even seen? And no Kermit whatsoever. WTF? Whole episodes go by without a glimpse of Big Bird, so they can bring us the new dippy female characters, neurotic Telly Monster, and whiny Baby Bear.
I could forgive it for not being the show I grew up on--if it had any significant qualities or charms left. But those moments are few and far between.
Don't waste your time on the current version, which is Sesame Street in name only. Get the "Old School" shows, full episodes, on DVD. The vision there is clear. Some of it's creaky, but at least it's not crap.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Erick Erickson Is the New CNN Go-to Bigot, Misogynist and Homophobe
Chatroulette: Naked Chicks, Boys Seeking Boobs and Connections Across the Globe
Power Grab: Comcast Has a New Name, but Merger With NBC Universal Still a Bad Idea




