Lessons from Super WHY!
A couple of weeks ago I attended a Super WHY! media event at WGBH and three things struck me as remarkable. First, parents clearly feel TV stigma, even in a room full of other parents who are on the same page as them. Second, few academic theses result in something as directly impacting as Super WHY! (I feel at liberty to say this, having written what I consider to be a quality Ph.D. thesis that was read by about 6 people, tops). And third, experiencing Super WHY! over the last couple of weeks has led me to: a) conclude that the characters work both in TV and print form; and b) loosen up on my data-obsessed analytic tendencies.
Treating each of these issues in turn:
1. TV stigma. The confessions and widespread nods of agreement in the WGBH conference room made clear the reality that many parents use TV to occupy their kids while they get other stuff done (e.g., dinner, tidying, work emails), yet feel kind of guilty about it. The good news, however, is that Super WHY! is researched in impressive fashion for educational value (see next point), so -- assuming TV is being consumed in moderation -- I think it’s pretty safe to drop the guilt when your kids tune into Super WHY! programming.
2. The best thesis ever. That’s sort of a joke and sort of not. Super WHY! was inspired by the developmental psychology master’s thesis of Angela Santomero (creator, executive producer, and head writer of the show). The show is crafted to build literacy skills while drawing from familiar elements of classic fairy tales. I was impressed to see how an academic thesis could grow into something so powerful and pedagogical, and also learn how much research and development goes into each episode. Episodes are tested for appeal, attention, comprehension, etc., in two stages: by reading stories/scripts to kids and by showing early (no music, little animation) black and white versions of episodes. Furthermore, a third party research group also has demonstrated that kids who watched Super WHY! (test group) outperformed kids who watched other non-literacy based educational programming (control group) on pre/post standardized literacy tests (e.g., letter naming and identification, word decoding and encoding, reading).
3. The show in practice. We’ve watched Super WHY! in the past and Laurel has always enjoyed it (though not in a clamoring, “Can I turn on the TV and watch Super WHY!?” sort of way) and Jon and I like the show as well, particularly for its calm pace. Prior to the meeting, however, we hadn’t watched Super WHY! in a long time, primarily because we like the convenience and commercial-free nature of On Demand PBS Sprout programming. Laurel – who actually sat on my lap the whole meeting – did immediately recognize the characters when they were projected on screen, and while I felt geared up to watch Super WHY! after this meeting, admittedly, we still didn’t get around to it. Instead, we read Jack and the Beanstalk repeatedly, Laurel burned through all of the activity pages she received at the meeting, and she also made popsicle stick puppets with the character mask cutouts.
Then at a recent bookstore outing, Laurel immediately picked out the Super WHY! Little Red Riding Hood and Princess and the Pea books. And every time we’ve read the books since, I’ve been amazed by her ability to follow the trajectory of the TV show through the book -- identifying red super letters and interacting at every opportunity; for example, giving a thumbs up, taking a bow, and even singing the “Hip, hip, hooray” song at the end (she even does the little hand motions).
Typically, the nit picky academic in me would be more skeptical of the data, seeking the details of the methodology and scrutinizing the general applicability of the measures (and in fact, I was the uber nerd at the meeting who got her knickers in a twist over the lack of standard error bars on the bar graphs). But learning what I learned, then seeing Super WHY! in action with Laurel made it clear that whether it’s via TV or book, there’s something powerful here; the programming is catchy, fun, and educational for kids, plus, it’s nice that the twists on fairy tales get away from the typical princess-rescued-by-a-prince nonsense. In short, if you need to use the TV to get the dishes done or dinner on the table, consider Super WHY! as a solid choice that’s engaging and educational for your kids. And if you’re anti-TV, the books are an excellent option.
My dad used to tell me, “A book is your only friend.” I always found that statement absurd and extreme, but like many lessons he taught me, I now see some truth in it. I still don't share his extremist viewpoint, but reading with, to, and in front of your kids is enormously beneficial both for bonding and learning. And there’s something about those sweet, giant-headed Super WHY! characters that kids really love. Clearly, Angela and her colleagues have done their homework, and then some.















Comments
I love Superwhy for my two girls. It really helped my oldest, now 4, learn to id her letters and the sounds much easier than from me alone! Also, her sister, at 12 months, could watch with her and interact with her singing and dancing to the songs!
Posted by: Megan | August 4, 2009 10:43 PM | Reply to this comment
sounds like a lot of fun! Will have to give it a try! Thanks for posting the info.
Posted by: Diana Schor | August 5, 2009 12:28 AM | Reply to this comment
The MA thesis that you mention here reminds me of many academic initiatives tied to community projects beyond academia that I've been noticing at conferences in the past couple of years. I chose my diss topic because I felt it could really say something. In retrospect I see it is a topic that feels obscure to most people, but the general theme--race relations--is something I can do a lot of good with and I am working to have more community connection and broader impact (lately the academics who get to plug their books on John Stewart are my inspiration.)
In short, what I'm trying to say is:
There's a lot of good in academia, and many of us enjoy the work. I understand your bitterness at your own experience (and bench sciences are indeed a different animal) but I hope you continue to open up to the good an academic scholar can do.
Posted by: jen | August 5, 2009 3:52 AM | Reply to this comment
Hi Jen,
Thanks for your thoughtful comment.
My intention was not to discount all of academia (that's why I wrote the tongue in cheek bullet point as "The best thesis ever") and I think it is fantastic that you're seeing more applied academic work that can make a difference in the community, not to mention making strides forward in your own field to create change around a really important topic.
I have lots of friends in academia across a variety of disciplines (i.e., not all bench work) and I respect them all immensely for having the passion and drive to work in a really challenging profession. Whenever I chat with friends and colleagues and they ask me about my leap, I always emphasize that it was what was right for me -- that I was good at academia but just didn't have the passion and desire for the work and publishing that are critical for staying in the game. And I always convey my admiration to them because I know how challenging it is to be doing what they are doing.
But I think it's probably safe to say that the minority of theses result in something so large and impacting as a literacy program that reaches so many children. That's what really amazed me as I learned about the evolution of Super WHY.
Anyhow, just wanted to clarify that that was what I was trying to get across -- by no means a blanket discounting of academia!
with best wishes,
Christine
Posted by: Christine Koh (Editor) | August 5, 2009 9:08 AM | Reply to this comment