Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 64 (2019) 101054

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jappdp

The impact of Galli Galli Sim Sim on Indian preschoolers T

a,⁎ a b a
Dina L.G. Borzekowski , Darius Singpurwalla , Deepti Mehrotra , Donna Howard
a
School of Public Health, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA
b
BGM Policy Innovations, Bangalore, India

ABSTRACT

While educational media can affect young children's development, rigorous studies rarely occur in low and middle income countries. Using an experimental design,
researchers investigated the effect of an educational television series (Galli Galli Sim Sim (GGSS), the Indian version of Sesame Street) with 1340 children in 99
preschools in Lucknow, India. Boys and girls, ages three to seven and mostly from low income households, saw 30 min of television five days a week for twelve weeks,
varying how much Galli Galli Sim Sim versus other programming children watched. Assessments occurred at baseline, endline, and six weeks later. Hierarchical
models showed that Galli Galli Sim Sim receptivity, an independent variable that combines exposure and recall, significantly improved literacy, numeracy, socio-
emotional strategies, and nutritional knowledge. Locally-produced educational media should be encouraged as it can positively affect potential school success and
child development.

Introduction
Universally, the preschool child achieves a huge number of devel-
opmental tasks between the ages of three to seven years. In this period,
language and literacy skills emerge where the child starts out only
having 250 to 500 words to being able to speak intelligibly and story
tell (Bowen, 1998; Dosman, Andrews, & Goulden, 2012; Gleason,
2000). The cognitive development of a three year old involves naming
familiar colors, sorting objects by shape and size, remembering parts of
a narrative, and recognizing and identifying common objects and pic-
tures (Dosman et al., 2012). By age six or seven years, children's pho-
nological and syntactical awareness leads to being able to read age-
appropriate books (Gleason, 2000). She or he understands the concept
of numbers and can do simple arithmetic functions (Butterworth,
2005). The young preschooler cautiously leaves his or her parent's side,
and will initiate social interactions with peers (Dosman et al., 2012).
Peer acceptance and friendships become a priority, and the older pre-
schooler can be expected to problem solve some interpersonal conflicts
(Feldman, 1998). Around the globe, compulsory schooling occurs
around age six years, when children start primary school (World Bank,
2019).
While some people express concern, there are strong beliefs and
evidence that media and technology can facilitate children's school
readiness. Around the world, well-produced television programming
and media can engage vulnerable, hard-to-reach audiences by offering a
source of informal education and enrichment (Borzekowski, 2018;
Mares & Pan, 2013). While not a replacement for a resource rich and
healthy learning environment, young children can benefit greatly from
educational media (Anderson & Pempek, 2005). Significant positive
effects of educational media have been observed among preschool and
early school aged children in a broad range of content areas (Kirkorian,
Wartella, & Anderson, 2008). While some global research is now
evaluating the impact of different media on youth (Borzekowski, Lando,
Olsen, & Giffen, 2019), historically, the most researched children's
program is Sesame Street (Fisch, 2014; Kearney & Levine, 2015; Mares &
Pan, 2013). Longitudinal research conducted in the United States shows
that children's early viewing of Sesame Street can lead to positive tra-
jectories, lasting well into secondary school and beyond (Anderson,
Huston, Schmitt, & Linebarger, 2001; Fisch, 2014). Internationally,
preschool children exposed to the various Sesame Street co-productions
have made significant gains in their knowledge of letters, numbers,
shapes, science, environment, one's culture, and health and safety-re-
lated practices (Borzekowski & Henry, 2011; Borzekowski & Macha,
2010; Cole et al., 2003; Mares & Pan, 2013). In a six week intervention
study conducted with 223 Tanzanian preschool children, significant
gains in literacy, numeracy, social development, and emotional devel-
opment were associated with children's receptivity of Kilimani Sesame,
as assessed through the accurate naming of the program's characters
(Borzekowski & Macha, 2010).
The mechanisms by which educational media exert a positive effect
on preschool children has been building since the 1960's and are now
better understood (Fisch, 2000). Psychologist Albert Bandura explored
media effects, especially among young children and demonstrated
through the process of observational learning that message components

⁎
Corresponding author at: Department of Behavioral and Community Health, School of Public Health, University of Maryland, 1234B SPH Building, College Park,
MD 20742, USA.
E-mail address: dborzeko@umd.edu (D.L.G. Borzekowski).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2019.101054
Received 12 September 2018; Received in revised form 1 July 2019; Accepted 16 July 2019
Available online 09 August 2019
0193-3973/ © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/BY-NC-ND/4.0/).
D.L.G. Borzekowski, et al.
could be manipulated to impact attention, retention, (re)production
and motivational processes, as well as self-efficacy (Bandura, 2001;
Bandura, 2004; Bandura & Walters, 1963). Successful educational
programs appear to be those that weave educational content, such as
facts and lessons, into the program narrative in an entertaining and
accessible storyline (Aladé & Nathanson, 2016; Borzekowski, 2018;
Fisch, 2000). There is evidence that bold and bright images and simple,
melodic music improve children's recall and retention of media content
(Borzekowski, 2018; Borzekowski et al., 2019; Yazejian & Peisner-
Feinberg, 2009). Additionally, Fisch's Capacity Model offers that a
baseline familiarity with a show's characters, format, and/or educa-
tional material is predictive of better narrative and content compre-
hension (Fisch, 2000). It seems critical that educational programming
provide engaging, entertaining material that not only reflects the cul-
ture and experiences of the audiences it is trying to reach, but also
presents new material within structures to which children are familiar
(Borzekowski et al., 2019).
Galli Galli Sim Sim (GGSS) is the Indian adaptation of the preschool
children's program Sesame Street. Galli Galli Sim Sim was first broadcast
in 2006, is produced in New Delhi, India, and includes live action,
puppet, and animated segments, delivered in a half-hour magazine
format. The program's target audience is four to six years olds but
younger children and adult caregivers are frequent viewers. The show,
offered in Hindi, presents age-appropriate and entertaining lessons
about letters, numbers, social interactions, foods, and exercise. Around
85% of the delivered content is new and produced in India; the re-
maining content is drawn from the Sesame Workshop archives. Like the
other Sesame Street productions,Galli Galli Sim Sim features Muppets.™
Muppets™ are bright and bold puppet characters, who reflect the cul-
ture of the specific country. In India, the most popular Muppet™ is
Chamki, an inquisitive and outgoing six year old schoolgirl who enjoys
learning, especially engaging in language and word play. Other Galli
Galli Sim Sim characters include Googly, a blue monster who is more
shy and introverted, Boombah, a large pink, purple lion who loves to
dance, and Anchoo, a purple monster who tells stories from her travels,
sings and makes up riddles and rhymes (http://muppet.wikia.com/
wiki/Muppet_Wiki).
Most studies examining media's impact are short-term, either done
as cross-sectional studies or interventions lasting only a few hours or
days. The general objectives and research design of the work presented
in this paper originated from conversations among the program's fun-
ders and producers. The goal of this work was to not only examine the
impact of Galli Galli Sim Sim but also inform development of new
content. This work employs a quasi-experimental design, conducted in
99 preschools, using a 12 week intervention, in Lucknow, India. While
controlling for demographics and developmental change over time, this
research explores if and how receptivity to the program Galli Galli Sim
Sim affects young Indian children in terms of four early childhood do-
mains of (1) literacy, (2) numeracy, (3) social and emotional skills, and
(4) health, as it relates to nutrition. Receptivity captures both exposure
and recall of media material, serving as a more sensitive and specific
measure.
Specific research questions examined include:
a. Controlling for demographics and developmental changes, does re-
ceptivity to Galli Galli Sim Sim have an impact on children's literacy
skills?
b. Controlling for demographics and developmental changes, does re-
ceptivity to Galli Galli Sim Sim have an impact on children's nu-
meracy skills?
c. Controlling for demographics and developmental changes, does re-
ceptivity to Galli Galli Sim Sim have an impact on children's social
and emotional skills?
d. Controlling for demographics and developmental changes, does re-
ceptivity to Galli Galli Sim Sim have an impact on children's health,
specifically knowledge of nutrition?
2
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 64 (2019) 101054
We hypothesized that given the entertaining, educational and cul-
turally appropriate nature of Galli Galli Sim Sim, Indian children with
high receptivity would perform better on all of the assessed outcomes
compared to those with lower levels of receptivity.
Method
School recruitment and arrangements
This study took place in Summer and Fall of 2016 in Lucknow, India
and involved extensive implementation and research teams (sub-
contracted through BGM Policy Innovations, Ltd., Bangalore, India).
Lucknow is the capital city of Uttar Pradesh and is a Tier II city with
households mainly from the C, D, and E socioeconomic classes (SECs)
(Singh, Sharma, & Nagesh, 2017). After doing exploratory field work,
the implementation team chose to do the study in private preschools
over government anganwandi centers. Private preschools are ubiqui-
tous and 86% of low-income, urban Indian children attend these
schools (Irfan, Karamchandani, Kohli, & Jain, 2016). Similar to what
parents report (Irfan et al., 2016), our team found that private pre-
schools had more stable infrastructure (i.e., continuous power source,
adequate seating arrangement for children, guaranteed safety of
equipment) and better administrative engagement and control (i.e.,
consistent teacher and student attendance and ratio, and records
maintenance). We felt the private preschools would be better at
meeting the study's prescribed protocols (i.e., active cooperation
reaching parents, program implementation and assessment, willingness
for researchers to be in the school settings).
Recruitment and selection of preschools began with the creation of a
comprehensive list of low-cost private schools across urban and peri-
urban neighborhoods in the Lucknow district, drawn from government
documents. School inclusion criteria required classification as a private
school, enrollment of 15 or more children in the school's pre-primary
class(es), and monthly school fees less than INR 500 (US $7.71). The
school fee limit was later reduced to INR 200 (US $3.09) to acquire
children from lower SECs.
The implementation team created a master list of schools covering
all six zones (including urban and peri-urban areas) of Lucknow. To
secure geographic representation, the team combined zones one & two
to form five clusters. Each cluster listed approximately 200 schools,
which were randomly sorted. The first 20 schools were then selected
from each cluster list.
Two implementation team members approached each selected
school and explained to the administrators the study's general purpose,
and the protocols involved in the assessments and intervention. When
necessary, the team did multiple visits to ensure that school adminis-
trators understood what would be expected from the school and the
children. Over 80% of the originally selected schools agreed to parti-
cipate. Five of the schools were ineligible, mainly because their actual
school fees were higher than published. Another four schools declined
participation, as their administrators felt the protocol was too bur-
densome. Two schools placed unreasonable demands (paying for the
intervention to be done in their school) on the research team. These
eleven schools were replaced with alternative schools that were next in
line from the master lists. Recruitment occurred over a three month
period, and eventually 99 schools were enrolled from the five clusters.
Schools received identical media equipment (Vu televisions and BPE
UPS sets) and installation was done by an implementation team
member. Room selection was determined by various factors (i.e.,
lighting, low external disturbance, size) and equipment was wall-
mounted at similar heights. Strict instructions (as per the signed Memo
of Understanding between the research team and school administra-
tion) required that provided equipment not be used for any purposes
outside of the intervention, during the study's duration. Remotes and
warranty cards were NOT given to school administrators until the
completion of data collection.
D.L.G. Borzekowski, et al.
The Intervention
Randomization occurred at the school level and the intervention
had three groups (control, low, and high), where the amount of Galli
Galli Sim Sim children saw differed. Children watched the same amount
of television, one half-hour episode five days a week for 12 weeks.
Indian media producers and experts provided the names of the five
most popular age-appropriate children's programs (Chhota Bheem, Roll
No. 21, Dora the Explorer, Dinosaur Train, and Tom & Jerry), and these
were used in the control and low groups. The non-Galli Galli Sim Sim
shows were selected because they represent what Indian children might
typically be watching, based on industry ratings. Two of these shows,
Dora the Explorer and Dinosaur Train, are educational; however, their
content (problem-solving and paleontology) is distinct from that of Galli
Galli Sim Sim. As noted earlier, Galli Galli Sim Sim offers educational
content delivered through different formats. The majority of Galli Galli
Sim Sim's educational material focuses on literacy and numeracy;
however, recent seasons have conveyed content on issues around socio-
emotional and health topics.
The intervention team made a six week viewing schedule (from
baseline and midline), which was repeated during the following six
weeks (from midline to endline). Such repetition has been employed in
other research on children and media, and has been found to enhance
overall and specific comprehension by young audiences (Borzekowski
et al., 2019; Kirkorian et al., 2008; Mares, 2006). The control group
watched one episode each from the five non-Galli Galli Sim Sim pro-
grams, each day during the intervention. Those in the low group were
shown Galli Galli Sim Sim two days a week (on the Tuesday and Friday
of the week) and randomly selected episodes from the non-Galli Galli
Sim Sim programs on the other three days. The high group only saw
Galli Galli Sim Sim during the intervention. For the high group, thirty
complete episodes were viewed in order by children during the first six
weeks and then repeated in the same order during the second half of the
intervention. All Galli Galli Sim Sim episodes came from the production's
seventh and eighth broadcast seasons.
Strong oversight was done to ensure the intervention occurred as
planned. Daily, implementation team members received flash drives
with only the material that their assigned schools were to see. Time and
global position stamped photographs confirmed attendance and that
the correct videos played at the specified times. Supervisors also did a
minimum of six unannounced visits at every intervention site.
Data Collection Procedures
In May 2016, parents were notified by the participating school
about the study, both orally and in writing, at beginning of the year
meetings. Parents provided passive consent as this was sufficient for the
University of Maryland's Institutional Review Board, which reviewed
and approved all protocols for this study. The Ministry of Education
Early Education, Lucknow Division also considered and approved the
study's methods.
This research paper describes three rounds of data collection. At
each round, a team of 40 data collectors, who were experienced at
doing assessments with young children, were assembled and trained in
the ethical implementation of the instruments. The individuals com-
prising the data collection/research team differed from the im-
plementation team, and were blind to the study's purpose. With the
permission of school administrators, one to two days were allotted for
data collection at each assessment round. The research team recorded
the exact assessment dates for each child. Digital data collection oc-
curred on smartphones to minimize errors, improve efficiency and
transparency in the data collection process. As well, digital data col-
lection enabled supervisors and the research team to know the exact
GPS location of data collector and time taken for each survey.
Throughout the study, reviews of the data for inconsistencies and
completeness were made by the supervising team.
3
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 64 (2019) 101054
Measures
Demographics
Only a handful of child demographic measures were assessed, as this
study occurred in preschools. Some information was provided by par-
ents, including the child's sex, child's age, and household's SEC (Socio
Economic Class). As per India's latest market standard report (Singh
et al., 2017), SEC was determined by asking the parents about: (1) the
highest level of education achieved by any of the adults in the house-
hold and (2) household durables.
Media Receptivity
We used a design where viewing in school was set; however, chil-
dren could easily watch Galli Galli Sim Sim at home or friends' houses
through broadcast. To account for viewing in and out of school, we used
as our main independent variable media receptivity. At each assess-
ment, children were shown a card containing images of 16 media
characters. While half of these characters were from Galli Galli Sim Sim,
the other half were characters from other popular children's programs.
Children were asked to name each character, and they received a score
for non-Galli Galli Sim Sim character receptivity and Galli Galli Sim Sim
receptivity. Receptivity captures not only basic exposure to materials
but also gauges whether a child has retained content seen and heard
(Borzekowski & Cohen, 2013; Borzekowski & Pires, 2018). It is both
sensitive and specific. Previous evaluations of children's television
productions have shown this measure to be valid, reliable, and highly
predictive of anticipated outcomes (Borzekowski & Henry, 2011;
Borzekowski & Macha, 2010). Statistical models that include both
specific program receptivity and general media receptivity isolate the
impact of exposure to a specific show (regardless of setting), while
controlling for a participant's cognitive ability to remember general
media content (Borzekowski & Macha, 2010). Specific show receptivity
picks up not just if a child was in the room while a show was being
played but also if the child was paying attention to the communicated
content.
In the analyses, we created three groups of no, low, and high re-
ceptivity. Those in the no receptivity group could name none of the
Galli Galli Sim Sim characters. Children in the low group could name
one or two Galli Galli Sim Sim characters and those in the high group
could name three or more Galli Galli Sim Sim characters. We set these
cutoffs, especially for the high group, to detect that a child was likely to
be seeing and remembering more than the most popular character of
Chamki. In contrast to the U.S., where practically every toddler can
name the Sesame Street character of Elmo (Lauricella, Gola, & Calvert,
2011), Galli Galli Sim Sim characters were less popular at least at the
time of this study in the city of Lucknow.
Dependent Variables
This study used instruments assessing children's developmental
skills, many based on established measures (i.e., World Bank India
School Readiness Instrument, Learning Metrics Task Force) and in-
struments used in other evaluations of educational media productions
(Borzekowski, 2018; Cole & Lee, 2016). There were overall scores for
each domain, but also subscales for specific topics. Most but not all of
these items were measured at every data wave collection.
As part of the literacy construct, six questions assessed if children
could recognize letters in Hindi, and another six asked children to
identify what letter started a word. As well, children were asked six
questions about common street signs (i.e., “Open,” “Closed,”
“Pedestrian Crossing”). Six different vocabulary words featured on Galli
Galli Sim Sim were tested (‘Word on the Street’) by having children
point to pictures that best showed the meaning of recited words. Lastly,
children were questioned about six English letters (recognition and
word start). An overall literacy score was created from the sum of these
subcategories. With 30 items, the Cronbach's α was the same (0.91) at
baseline, endline, and follow-up.
D.L.G. Borzekowski, et al.
Numeracy was measured through six sub-categories. First and
second, children had to identify (four questions) and name (another
four questions) numbers using a card that listed in order the numbers
one through twenty. Third, children were shown four different objects
and asked to count how many were on a page. Fourth, children were
given a picture card with nine different shapes and had to identify, by
pointing, four of them, leading to a score for shape recognition. Fifth,
children were assessed in their knowledge of spatial words, where re-
searchers presented an image and asked four questions about positions
of the items in the image (“What is in between the tree and the goat?”).
The sixth numeracy category involved four pattern predictions, such
that children had to name the shape that would come next in a se-
quence (“Here is a circle, a triangle, a triangle, a circle, and a triangle.
What shape would come next?”). Overall numeracy was the sum of
these subcategories and had 24 items. The Cronbach's α was 0.93 at
baseline, 0.91 at endline, and 0.92 at follow-up.
In the social-emotional assessment, children considered six different
scenarios. Researchers showed and explained to the children a picture
card illustrating a situation such as bullying, peer pressure, conflict
resolution, good touch/bad touch, jealousy, and getting lost in the
market. The naming emotions battery had children indicate how a
depicted character was feeling, by pointing to different faces on a card.
Each face showed a different emotion, such as happy, sad, surprised, or
angry. Identifying strategies required participating children to point to
a picture of one of four possible ways to “solve the problem” described
in the original scenario. The overall socio-emotional score combined
the exercises of naming emotions (six questions) and identifying stra-
tegies (six questions). At baseline, the Cronbach's α was 0.83; at endline
it was 0.76 and at follow-up 0.72.
The health outcome was essentially a measure of children's knowl-
edge of healthy food items versus foods of low nutritional value.
Researchers asked children to classify 16 different food or beverage
items, using the same terms presented through Galli Galli Sim Sim
content. So that all children were familiar with the terms of “anytime”
and “sometime” foods, the researcher provided a brief explanation and
example (i.e., “ice cream” is a “sometimes” food), children were asked
to sort image cards of foods and beverages into piles of “anytime” or
“sometimes” items. Children were given a point for each correct clas-
sification. This measure was not assessed at baseline. The Cronbach's α
was 0.73 at both endline and follow-up.
Statistical Analyses
Data was collected from 1990 children at baseline, 2613 children at
endline, and 2290 children at the follow-up. While there are several
ways one could approach this data, we chose to analyze data from the
1340 children who we completed interviews at all assessments. To
create three receptivity levels, children who were unable to name any
Galli Galli Sim Sim characters were placed in the “No” receptivity group.
Those who could name one or two characters were put in the “Low
Receptivity” group and three or more characters in the “High
Receptivity” group. Again, we used receptivity to capture Galli Galli Sim
Sim exposure as it not only accounted for school viewing but also
captured home and other natural exposure to Galli Galli Sim Sim.
Our first step in the analyses involved an examination of the uni-
variate statistics and bivariate relationships, noting patterns for the
variables and determining if there were any significant differences be-
tween the receptivity groups. We explored patterns of receptivity to
Galli Galli Sim Sim over time, considering validity and manipulation
checks with other variables
To investigate whether receptivity to Galli Galli Sim Sim predicted
endline and follow-up scores for the four (and 18 subcategory) out-
comes, the analyses used the hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) ap-
proach. HLM is a modeling technique that is often used when ob-
servations are nested within different levels. It is preferred over other
regression techniques when analyzing nested data because it accounts
4
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 64 (2019) 101054
for the naturally occurring interdependence of variables (Snijers &
Bosker, 2012). In this study, children were nested within schools,
meaning that participants may have shared common characteristics
such as being from a particular neighborhood, having relationships
with certain teachers, and accessing similar resources in a school-set-
ting. HLM algorithms allowed for researchers to hypothesize different
levels of nesting and to statistically test whether these levels accounted
for a significant portion of the variation in the outcome (Woltman,
Feldstain, MacKay, & Rocchi, 2012). We decided to use a three level
HLM. At the highest level of the hierarchy are the schools, which served
as the primary sampling unit for the study; the second level of the
hierarchy consists of the students within these schools, and finally, the
third level of the hierarchy represents the measurements taken for each
student at the three different time periods of the study. While several
predictors (both at the school and the individual level) and interactions
were tested when developing the HLM, we settled upon a parsimonious
model where we accounted for the child's sex and age, SEC level of the
child's household, make-up of the class, baseline scale score, passage of
time, and a general measure for how well the children pay attention to
and recall media content (non-Galli Galli Sim Sim receptivity).
Two different effect sizes were calculated for this data. The first
effect size is the percent difference in adjusted mean outcome score
between receptivity groups (i.e., high receptivity vs. no or low re-
ceptivity vs. no). The second effect size is a modified Cohen's d statistic,
offering an effect size that measures the standardized difference be-
tween two group means (Cohen, 1988). Cohen's d is calculated by
taking the difference between the model adjusted mean scores, and
dividing by their pooled standard deviation. The term “modified” is
used because these effect sizes are calculated using the group's model
adjusted means rather than their raw means and the unadjusted pooled
standard deviations. Cohen's d statistics are provided as a simple way to
assess the magnitude of having high or low receptivity to the show
when compared to having no receptivity. Cohen's d provides a measure
of the size of the difference between these two groups and moves be-
yond simply reporting the existence of an effect.
Anticipating questions about intervention group's impact, additional
analyses were done exploring models and significant differences across
control, low, and high exposure groups in predicting the various out-
comes. We briefly discuss findings from these analyses at the end of the
results section.
Results
Table 1 displays demographic and baseline information on the
sample of 1304 children. This table also presents endline and follow-up
information by receptivity groups. At endline, 655 children were in the
no receptivity group, while 385 and 264 children were in the low and
high receptivity groups, respectively. At follow-up, 843 children had no
receptivity, while 350 children had low and 111 children had high
receptivity. As expected, Galli Galli Sim Sim receptivity increased from
baseline to endline, but then there was a drop-off at the six week follow-
up.
We did look at groupings based on what children viewed through
school groups. The greatest Galli Galli Sim Sim receptivity was among
the children who only saw Galli Galli Sim Sim during the school inter-
vention (M = 2.55; SD = 1.96) followed by those who saw a mix of
programming (M = 1.10; SD = 1.31), and those who saw no Galli Galli
Sim Sim at school (M = 0.15; SD = 0.55). Children were assigned into
the no, low, and high receptivity groups and the association with school
viewing groups was significant (endline Χ2(4, N = 1304) = 586.6,
p < .001; follow-up Χ2(4, N = 1304) = 273.3, p < .001). We should
note that there were children who saw no Galli Galli Sim Sim at school
who were in either the low or high receptivity groups, suggesting home
viewing of Galli Galli Sim Sim. At endline, among those in the control
viewing group of 464 children who saw no Galli Galli Sim Sim at school,
89%, 10%, and 1% were in the no, low, and high receptivity groups,
D.L.G. Borzekowski, et al. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 64 (2019) 101054

Table 1
Key demographic and media exposure variables (n = 1304).
Baseline Endline Follow-up

a b c
Total N (%) No N (%) Low N (%) High N (%) Sig Diff? Noa N (%) Lowb N (%) Highc N (%) Sig Diff?

Sex
Female 613 (47) 315 (48) 186 (48) 112 (42) 402 (47) 164 (47) 47 (42)
Male 691 (53) 340 (52) 199 (52) 152 (57) Χ2 = 2.8, NS 441 (52) 186 (53) 64 (58) Χ2 = 1.2, NS

Age
4 years and younger 414 (32) 206 (31) 140 (36) 68 (25) 79 (9) 39 (11) 9 (8)
5 years 489 (38) 252 (38) 137 (36) 100 (38) 273 (32) 106 (30) 37 (33)
2
6 years and older 401 (31) 197 (30) 108 (28) 96 (36) Χ = 9.5* 491 (58) 205 (59) 65 (59) Χ2 = 1.5, NS

SEC Category
A and B 470 (36) 240 (37) 134 (35) 97 (37) 320 (38) 119 (34) 32 (29)
C 348 (27) 193 (29) 90 (23) 65 (25) 224 (27) 96 (27) 28 (25)
D and E 387 (30) 173 (26) 133 (35) 84 (32) 239 (28) 109 (31) 42 (38)
Missing 98 (8) 49 (7) 28 (7) 18 (7) Χ2 = 10.0, NS 60 (7) 26 (7) 9 (8) Χ2 = 6.3, NS

How often do you watch TV?

Less than once a day 184 (14) 61 (9) 43 (11) 32 (12) 103 (22) 68 (19) 37 (33)
Once a day 466 (36) 264 (40) 140 (36) 125 (47) 335 (40) 139 (40) 34 (31)
Several times a day 654 (50) 330 (50) 202 (52) 107 (41) Χ2 = 11.5* 405 (48) 143 (41) 40 (36) Χ2 = 38.2***

Can name Doraemon?

No 431 (33) 182 (28) 104 (27) 48 (18) 181 (21) 69 (20) 8 (7)
Yes 873 (67) 473 (72) 281 (73) 216 (82) Χ2 = 9.7** 662 (79) 281 (80) 103 (93) Χ2 = 12.6*

Have you ever seen GGSS?

No 1035 (79) 325 (50) 86 (22) 30 (11) 372 (44) 89 (25) 6 (5)
Yes 269 (21) 330 (50) 299 (68) 234 (87) Χ2 = 155.2*** 471 (56) 261 (75) 105 (95) Χ2 = 86.4*

Can name Chamki?

No 1285 (99) 355 (100) 140 (36) 32 (12) 843 (100) 173 (49) 11 (10)
Yes 19 (1) 0 (0) 245 (63) 232 (88) Χ2 = 799.8*** 0 (0) 177 (51) 100 (90) Χ2 = 799.8***
M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)
Non-GGSS characters named 3.36 (1.80) 2.62 (1.46) 2.84 (1.70) 3.67 (1.80) F = 40.9*** 3.07 (1.51) 3.66 (1.71) 5.33 (1.72) F = 104.5***
GGSS characters named 0.01 (0.35) 0 (0) 1.38 (0.48) 4.18 (1.31) F = 3929.7*** 0 (0) 1.29 (0.45) 3.81 (1.08) F = 808.7***

NS, non-significant, ~p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
a
No refers to a child being unable to name any GGSS characters, blow receptivity refers to a child being able name one or two GGSS characters, and chigh receptivity
refers to a child naming 3 or more GGSS characters.

respectively. In the Galli Galli Sim Sim-only viewing group at endline,
17%, 36%, and 46% were in the no, low, and high receptivity groups,
respectively.
Table 2 provides the overall raw means and standard deviations for
the various outcomes at baseline, and by receptivity group at endline
and follow-up. At baseline, there were no significant differences across
receptivity groups for overall literacy. There were slight differences for
overall numeracy baseline scores (F(2, 1301) = 8.2, p = .003), with the
no (M = 13.3; SD = 5.8) and high (M = 13.4; SD = 6.3) receptivity
groups being slightly greater than the low (M = 12.0; SD = 6.7) group.
The socio-emotional baseline scores also differed significantly (F(2,
1301) = 3.3, p = .034), with the no (M = 3.9; SD = 1.6) group being
greater than the low (M = 3.6; SD = 1.6) and high (M = 3.7; SD = 1.7)
receptivity groups. (The health score data was not available at base-
line). For the overall scores and most of the subscores, the raw mean
scores increased over time except for the socio emotional variable. All
baseline scores were significantly (moderate and positive) associated
with endline and follow-up scores. Baseline literacy scores were cor-
related with endline (r(1,302) = 0.61, p < .001) and follow-up (r
(1,302) = 0.51, p < .001) literacy scores. Baseline numeracy scores
were correlated with endline (r(1,302) = 0.58, p < .001) and follow-
up (r(1,302) = 0.52, p < .001) numeracy scores. Baseline socio-emo-
tional scores were correlated with endline (r(1,302) = 0.23, p < .001)
and follow-up (r(1,302) = 0.18, p < .001) socio-emotional scores.
Table 3 offers the results of the HLM models predicting the overall
outcomes at endline and Table 4 shows similar models at follow-up.
These tables offer standardized coefficients for each variable. All
models used identical approaches and included passage of time, sex,
age, SEC level, class type, baseline score for the construct, non-Galli
Galli Sim Sim receptivity, and Galli Galli Sim Sim receptivity. Models

Table 2
Outcomes by receptivity category (n = 1304).
Scores Baseline Endline Follow-up

Overall Noa Lowb Highc Noa Lowb Highc

Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Fstat Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Fstat

Literacy 12.7 (6.2) 15.3 (5.8) 15.7 (5.8) 18.1 (4.7) 24.9*** 16.1 (5.9) 17.5 (5.4) 20.1 (4.8) 25.7***
Numeracy 13.0 (6.2) 15.1 (4.8) 16.4 (4.7) 18.1 (3.7) 16.9*** 16.9 (5.2) 18.0 (4.3) 18.3 (3.6) 8.6***
Socio-Emotional 3.74 (1.6) 3.47 (1.9) 3.71 (1.9) 4.2 (1.9) 15.7*** 3.5 (1.9) 3.8 (2.1) 4.4 (2.1) 12.7***
Health NA 8.9 (3.3) 9.6 (3.1) 10.3 (3.1) 18.5*** 10.0 (3.3) 10.4 (3.3) 11.3 (3.1) 8.5***

NS, non-significant, ~p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
a
No refers to a child being unable to name any GGSS characters, blow receptivity refers to a child being able name one or two GGSS characters, and chigh receptivity
refers to a child naming 3 or more GGSS characters.

5
D.L.G. Borzekowski, et al. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 64 (2019) 101054

Table 3
Predicting endline literacy, numeracy, socio-emotional, and health scores (N = 1304).
Predictors Literacy Numeracy Socio-Emotional Health

Std. β Std. β Std. β Std. β

Intercept −0.25 *** −0.24 *** −0.36 *** −0.12 ~

Time 0.20 *** 0.25 *** −0.01 NS 0.13 ***
Sex (Males vs. Females) −0.05 ** −0.04 * −0.04 NS −0.01 NS
Age 0.02 * 0.03 *** 0.07 *** 0.00 NS
SEC Level
SEC Level C vs. A & B 0.01 NS 0.02 NS −0.03 NS 0.01 NS
SEC Level D & E vs. A & B 0.01 NS −0.04 NS 0.00 NS 0.02 NS
Class
Kindergarten vs. Nursery 0.14 *** 0.12 *** 0.01 NS 0.04 NS
Mixed vs. Nursery 0.13 ** 0.04 NS 0.02 NS 0.03 NS
Baseline Score 0.67 *** 0.64 *** 0.40 *** 0.61 ***
Non GGSS Receptivity 0.12 *** 0.13 *** 0.10 *** 0.09 ***
Receptivity Groups
Lowb vs. Noa 0.13 *** 0.11 *** 0.08 ** 0.12 **
Highc vs. Noa 0.20 *** 0.14 *** 0.13 ** 0.17 ***

NS, non-significant, ~p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
a
No refers to a child being unable to name any GGSS characters, blow receptivity refers to a child being able name one or two GGSS characters, and chigh receptivity
refers to a child naming 3 or more GGSS characters.

predicting the sub-categorical outcomes at endline and follow-up are
available from the corresponding author.
Several trends emerged in the models. Except for the overall socio-
emotional outcome, time was significant in each of the models in-
dicating that children performed better (as they got older) on the dif-
ferent assessments. Sex was a significant predictor with females out-
performing males in literacy, numeracy, and socio-emotional (but not
health). In all but the health model, age was a significant predictor,
with older children tending to do better than younger children. Across
all the models, SEC level was not a significant predictor. One's school
class type (i.e., kindergarten, mixed classes, or nursery) was a sig-
nificant predictor in several models with kindergarten and mixed class
types doing better than nursery level classes in literacy. Being in a
kindergarten class versus a nursery class predicted numeracy, while
controlling for the other variables. Not surprisingly, a child's score at
baseline was a significant predictor in each of the models. Lastly, non-
Galli Galli Sim Sim receptivity was significantly associated with higher
scores on all the outcomes.
Receptivity to Galli Galli Sim Sim was a significant predictor for all
the measured outcomes, controlling for the aforementioned variable
set. In every model, high receptivity had a larger coefficient than low
receptivity, when comparing to no receptivity. Table 5 offers the Co-
hen's d and percent increase effect sizes, not only for the overall con-
struct but also for the subcategories at endline and follow-up. Here, the
Cohen's d and effect sizes are generally small, with the largest effect
being with overall literacy at the endline assessment. When controlling
for all other factors, a child having high receptivity to Galli Galli Sim Sim
will score, on average, 13% higher on the overall literacy outcome
compared to a child having no receptivity. Under literacy, the sub-
categories of English and Hindi letter start had the greatest gains. For
the numeracy subcategories, receptivity was associated with improved
performance on the shape recognition assessments. Identifying strate-
gies drove the improvements for the socio-emotional variable, as
naming emotions was either negative or non-significant.
As mentioned, additional analyses were run upon the request of the
funders and the producers of Galli Galli Sim Sim. We estimated models
using the group intervention assignment (control, low, and high) as a
dummy variable, controlling for time, sex, SEC level, class, and baseline
score. When it was significant, this variable was only a weak predictor
of the outcome scores. At endline and follow-up, low exposure versus
control intervention groups approached significance for predicting
overall literacy scores but not for high versus control for either. For

Table 4
Predicting follow-up literacy, numeracy, socio-emotional, and health scores (N = 1304).
Predictors Literacy Numeracy Socio-Emotional Health

Std. β Std. β Std. β Std. β

Intercept −0.27 *** −0.26 *** −0.35 *** −0.22 **

Time 0.23 *** 0.26 *** −0.01 NS 0.19 ***
Sex (males vs. females) −0.07 ** −0.05 * −0.07 NS −0.01 NS
Age 0.02 * 0.02 *** 0.06 *** 0.01 NS
SEC level
SEC Level C vs. A & B −0.01 NS 0.00 NS −0.03 NS 0.00 NS
SEC Level D & E vs. A & B 0.01 NS −0.03 NS −0.00 NS 0.03 NS
Class
Kindergarten vs. nursery 0.18 *** 0.18 *** 0.07 NS 0.15 NS
Mixed vs. nursery 0.19 ** 0.11 NS 0.07 NS 0.11 NS
Baseline score 0.60 *** 0.59 *** 0.32 *** 0.46 ***
Non GGSS receptivity 0.14 *** 0.12 *** 0.14 *** 0.11 ***
Receptivity groups
Lowb vs. noa 0.13 *** 0.15 *** 0.08 ** 0.10 **
Highc vs. noa 0.25 *** 0.19 *** 0.15 ** 0.18 ***

NS, non-significant, ~p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
a
No refers to a child being unable to name any GGSS characters, blow receptivity refers to a child being able name one or two GGSS characters, and chigh receptivity
refers to a child naming 3 or more GGSS characters.

6
D.L.G. Borzekowski, et al. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 64 (2019) 101054

Table 5
Cohen's d and effect sizes (% increase) associated with GGSS Receptivity, for the full sample at endline and follow-up.
Modified Cohen's d Effect Sizes % Increase

Endline Follow-Up Endline Follow-Up

Lowa Highb Lowa Highb Lowa Highb Lowa Highb

Literacy
Overall literacy score 0.24 0.37 0.14 0.28 10% 13% 6% 11%
Hindi letter recognition NS NS 0.06 0.10 NS NS 4% 6%
Hindi letter word start 0.12 0.12 0.09 0.14 12% 16% 8% 13%
Sign recognition 0.08 0.09 0.07 0.20 11% 14% 13% 24%
Word on the street 0.11 0.27 0.14 0.27 3% 6% 4% 7%
English letter recognition NS 0.12 0.07 0.19 NS 6% 3% 8%
English letter word start 0.22 0.23 0.17 0.33 14% 22% 10% 18%

Numeracy
Overall numeracy score 0.15 0.20 0.18 0.24 5% 6% 6% 7%
Identifying numbers 0.07 NS 0.16 0.17 2% NS 7% 8%
Number recognition NS NS 0.12 0.10 NS NS 6% 5%
Enumeration 0.11 0.18 0.15 0.23 3% 5% 5% 8%
Shape recognition 0.22 0.39 0.09 0.21 12% 23% 4% 10%
Spatial understanding 0.16 0.18 0.20 0.21 7% 8% 6% 8%
Patterns NS NS 0.09 0.13 NS NS 6% 9%

Socio-emotional
Overall socio-emotional score 0.06 008 0.01 0.03 5% 7% 4% 8%
Naming emotions NS NS NS −0.07 NS NS NS −5%
Identifying strategies 0.11 0.17 0.21 0.22 7% 11% 7% 14%

Health
Sorting food 0.13 0.18 0.10 0.19 5% 6% 4% 7%

NS, non-significant.
a
Low receptivity refers to a child being able name one or two GGSS characters, and bhigh receptivity refers to a child naming 3 or more GGSS characters.

overall numeracy, high exposure versus control approached sig-
nificance at only the endline assessment. The high exposure versus the
control was a significant predictor of the socio-emotional score at
endline, but only approached significance at follow up. Lastly, high
exposure versus control approached significance at endline and follow
up for the health/food sorting outcome. When we created models using
both intervention group and reception levels, the intervention groups
were never significant, while the reception levels were always sig-
nificant predictors. These different analyses are available upon request
from the corresponding author.
Discussion
This quasi-experimental study, conducted in 99 private preschools
in Lucknow, India, shows that receptivity to the children's television
program Galli Galli Sim Sim can have a significant, albeit small positive
effect on several important early childhood developmental domains,
including literacy, numeracy, socio-emotional, and health. The most
consistent finding was for the literacy outcome, with children in the
high receptivity group having a 13% effect size gain at endline and an
11% gain at follow-up. Weak, although positive and significant, effects
were found for overall numeracy, with the greatest gains in the sub-
category of shape recognition. Overall socio-emotional scores were
impacted by high receptivity to Galli Galli Sim Sim, although driving this
finding was the subcategory component of identifying strategies and
not naming emotions. Only one aspect of health was tested and that
involved a food sorting exercise. Children who had high receptivity to
Galli Galli Sim Sim did significantly better in identifying sometimes and
anytime foods compared to those with no or low receptivity.
Researchers have done a handful of similar but much smaller stu-
dies. Many of our findings are comparable. One study found that, in
contrast to those in the control group, Indonesian preschool children
with high exposure to Jalan Sesama had significantly higher scores on
literacy, numeracy, safety, and cultural awareness outcomes, but not
the social development outcomes (Borzekowski & Henry, 2011). In
Tanzania, when researchers used a similar analytic model, also con-
trolling for the baseline construct score and general media receptivity,
receptivity to Kilimani Sesame significantly predicted higher scores for
literacy, numeracy, social and emotional development, and health
(Borzekowski & Macha, 2010). Observed effect sizes reported in this
study of Galli Galli Sim Sim resemble those recently found in work
evaluating another preschool program Akili and Me (produced in Dar es
Salaam, Tanzania) (Borzekowski, 2018).
Exposure to educational programs has a significant and positive
impact; however, drastic changes are hardly ever observed. Television
programs can influence children but media does not appear to be cure-
all. Children at this age are at a stage of rapid development and growth.
Observed gains may reflect a child's readiness to learn and maturity,
and have little to do with seeing and remembering a television show.
Likewise, some children may fail to thrive and media neither harms nor
helps.
A limitation of this study is that used 30 episodes from one program.
These episodes may not be generalizable to all Galli Galli Sim Sim
content, but mainly Galli Galli Sim Sim episodes are quite similar across
episodes and seasons. Consistently, Galli Galli Sim Sim employs many
critical and theoretically-based factors that would predict gains. We
believe that Galli Galli Sim Sim's most distinctive feature is its delivery of
content in Hindi and the inclusion of many culturally relevant elements.
Live action pieces are filmed in locations around the country and
puppet skits use Muppet™ characters who look, dress, and act in an
Indian style. Local details, such as fabric styles and foods eaten, are
embedded in the program. Children's media research shows that if
children are more familiar with a program's features, then they are
better able to devote more energy to processing the novel content
(Fisch, 2000), such as new words, numbers, and letters. This is not a
surprising finding. Forty years ago, researchers found that children
learned more from a televised narrative when their ethnic and social
class background matched that of the program's characters and situa-
tion (Newcomb & Collins, 1979).
Another limitation of this study is that it occurred within schools.

7
D.L.G. Borzekowski, et al.
This is not the typical way children watch television, and it would be
interesting to investigate naturalistic home viewing. The school setting,
however, permitted our research team to control not only what children
were exposed to but also allowed data collection at several time points
from a large sample.
A critique raised by some is that this research does not use experi-
mental group as a proxy for exposure. We performed a variety of ana-
lyses, and found that receptivity more so than intervention exposure
group consistently predicted increases among the outcomes. We are
advancing that receptivity better isolates who was paying attention to
the content, not just who was in the room when the material was being
presented. As has been done elsewhere, this strict measure of re-
ceptivity requires a child to provide the exact name of a character
(Borzekowski, 2018; Borzekowski et al., 2019). We believe receptivity
is more sensitive and specific than other measures. We could have used
the question “Have you ever watched the television show Galli Galli Sim
Sim?” Participants could say “yes” to such a question, but when one
gives this answer, there is no verification. In contrast, providing a
character's name requires not only exposure but also memory of that
character. There is no way to respond “Chamki” or “Googly” without
familiarity to those characters. Finally, receptivity also captures
viewing outside of the intervention as well as other potential con-
tamination (i.e., seeing promotional materials in the community,
sharing songs learned through the programming), where intervention
group assignment might not account for such influences.
Children in the low and high receptivity groups at endline could
only name on average 1.4 and 4.2 characters, respectively; however,
this is similar to what has been found in other research. Surprisingly,
even when there is verifiable exposure, children have difficulty naming
a show's characters. With a six week intervention study in Tanzania,
preschool children who saw 2 or 6 h a week of Kilimani Sesame could
correctly name only 2.2 or 2.8 characters, respectively (Borzekowski &
Macha, 2010). In a 14-week study of Jalan Sesama in Indonesia, those in
the low exposure group could name 2.8 characters while those in the
high exposure group could name 6.1 characters (Borzekowski & Henry,
2011). Research exploring the TV show Akili and Me found that pre-
school children in a treatment group (exposure to 5 episodes, each
shown 4 times over 4 weeks) could only name an average of 1.8 out of 5
characters (Borzekowski, 2018).
A child can know a character without having watched the actual
television show, possibly seeing characters through books, community
activities, or even promotional materials. In studying the receptivity of
Galli Galli Sim Sim, this research does not identify how the child came to
know the characters' name. Rather than assume that exposure to the
show only came through the media intervention, receptivity allows us
to broadly detect if any exposure, be it through the classroom, play-
ground, or home interactions, affects developmental outcomes.
Despite small effects, educational media producers should be en-
couraged. The design of this study left little room for change, as the
employed instruments, protocols, and analyses in this research were
quite rigorous. Most of the variance in the outcomes can be explained
by the child's performance on the baseline measure. We also controlled
for the passage of time, in which we would expect that these partici-
pating children would improve on these types of measures over the
period of the experiment and beyond. Not surprisingly, age was a sig-
nificant predictor. With this variable we are recognizing that children
who are slightly older (five, six and seven year olds) are more ready to
learn material than their younger (three and four year old) peers. The
models included an assessment of non-Galli Galli Sim Sim character
receptivity. This variable detects a type and level of intelligence where
children see and are able to remember media characters. We feel con-
fident that observed effects associated with Galli Galli Sim Sim re-
ceptivity suggest that, indeed, seeing and remembering this specific
show results in improved outcomes among a vulnerable population of
Indian children.
This research does not explain how or why exposure to Galli Galli
8
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 64 (2019) 101054
Sim Sim affects the assessed outcomes. While we would believe children
may be directly learning lessons from the content, one finding suggests
that other mechanisms may be related to exposure to Galli Galli Sim Sim.
Children with high Galli Galli Sim Sim receptivity did 22% better than
children without receptivity on the outcome of English letter recogni-
tion. This is curious, as Galli Galli Sim Sim infrequently presents content
delivered in English. One possible explanation is that watching Galli
Galli Sim Sim may encourage its audience to be more curious and learn
content presented in many educational settings (such as their pre-
schools or homes.) Exposure to educational media may possibly sti-
mulate learning in different contexts.
Conclusion
This study is unlike any other that has ever been conducted to ex-
amine the impact of children's educational television. The work oc-
curred in Lucknow, India in almost one hundred preschools. Great care
was taken in the conduct of this work, assuring that the design was not
compromised by threats to its internal validity. Data collection occurred
at over time, and our team considered immediate as well as slightly
delayed impact of a specific program. Great efforts have been made to
collect age- and culturally-appropriate data, which is both valid and
reliable. A trained and diligent team successfully re-contacted this di-
verse sample of vulnerable children, to study television's impact using a
quasi-experimental design. The analysis approach was strict and iso-
lated exposure to Galli Galli Sim Sim. While modest, it is clear through
this research that Galli Galli Sim Sim is having a positive effect on the
development of young Indian children.
Accessible and high quality childhood education is a key component
of global development efforts and a moral imperative (Heckman, 2011;
Rees, Chai, & Anthony, 2012). That is, investing in children is not only
the right thing to do for their survival and well-being but vital for
creating and sustaining economic development and societal improve-
ments (Boyden & Dercon, 2012; Heckman, 2011; NAM, 2016; Rees
et al., 2012). Early childhood is a critical developmental period, and
enriched environments and quality stimulation are of utmost im-
portance (WHO, 2007). Educational media is one platform that can be
used to convey and model information (Kirkorian et al., 2008) parti-
cularly when attending school imposes an opportunity cost that can be
burdensome to the poor families. Through this work, we see that a well-
designed educational television program impacts child development.
Broadcast television in developing countries can serve as a cost effective
way to influence and affect learning, especially through educational
programming designed to increase school readiness and competence
among young viewers (Baydar, Kağitҫibaşi, Küntay, & Gökşen, 2008;
Borzekowski, 2018; Engle et al., 2011; Huston & Wright, 1996). This
study of Galli Galli Sim Sim, along with the literature on other inter-
national productions, offer promising support that media can have
positive effects, even among some of the world's most vulnerable chil-
dren (Borzekowski, 2018; Kirkorian et al., 2008; Mares & Pan, 2013).
Contributor Statement
Dr. Borzekowski developed the research proposal. Drs. Borzekowski
and Howard, along with the assistance of Ms. Mehrotra prepared the
research protocol and instruments. Dr. Borzekowski submitted and
obtained clearance from the institutional review board. Dr.
Borzekowski and Ms. Mehrotra hired and trained the researchers. Ms.
Mehrotra oversaw data collection and data entry. Dr. Borzekowski and
Mr. Singpurwalla conducted the data analyses. All authors helped
prepare this manuscript and take responsibility for its findings.
Funding
Research for this article was funded by The Children's Investment
Fund Foundation (UK) (“CIFF”). The views, opinions, assumptions or
D.L.G. Borzekowski, et al.
any other information set out in this article are solely those of the au-
thors and should not be attributed to CIFF or any person connected with
CIFF.
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful for the assistance provided by BGM Policy
Innovations implementation and data collection research teams
(Bangalore, India). As well, we appreciate materials provided by
Sesame Workshop India (Delhi, India).
References
Aladé, F., & Nathanson, A. I. (2016). What preschoolers bring to the show: The relation
between viewer characteristics and children's learning from television. Media
Psychology, 19, 406–430. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2015.1054945.
Anderson, D. R., Huston, A. C., Schmitt, K. L., & Linebarger, D. W. J. C. (2001). Early
childhood television viewing and adolescent behavior: The recontact study.
Monographs for the Society for Research in Child Development, 66, 264.
Anderson, D. R., & Pempek, T. A. (2005). Television and very young children. American
Behavioral Scientist, 48(5), 505–522. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764204271506.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory of mass communication. Media Psychology, 3,
265–299.
Bandura, A. (2004). Social cognitive theory for personal and social change by enabling
media. In A. Singhal, M. J. Cody, E. M. Rogers, & M. Sabido (Eds.). Entertainment-
education and social change: History, research, and practice (pp. 75–96). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Bandura, A., & Walters, R. H. (1963). Social learning and personality development. New
York: Rinehart and Winston.
Baydar, N., Kağitҫibaşi, Ҫ., Küntay, A., & Gökşen, F. (2008). Effects of an educational
television program on preschoolers: Variability in benefits. Journal of Applied
Developmental Psychology, 29, 249–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2008.06.
005.
Borzekowski, D. L. G. (2018). A quasi-experiment examining the impact of educational
cartoons on Tanzanian children. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 54,
53–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2017.11.007.
Borzekowski, D. L. G., & Cohen, J. C. (2013). International reach of tobacco marketing
among young children. Pediatrics, 132(4), e825–e831. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.
2013-1150.
Borzekowski, D. L. G., & Henry, H. K. (2011). The impact of Jalan Sesama on the edu-
cational and healthy development of Indonesian preschool children: An experimental
study. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 35, 169–179. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0165025410380983.
Borzekowski, D. L. G., Lando, A. L., Olsen, S., & Giffen, L. (2019). The impact of an
educational media intervention to support children's early learning in Rwanda.
International Journal of Early Childhood, 51, 109–126. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s13158-019-00237-4.
Borzekowski, D. L. G., & Macha, J. (2010). The role of Kilimani Sesame on the healthy
development of Tanzanian preschool children. Journal of Applied Developmental
Psychology, 31, 298–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2010.05.002.
Borzekowski, D. L. G., & Pires, P. P. (2018). A six country study of young children's media
exposure, logo recognition, and dietary preferences. Journal of Children and Media,
12, 143–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2018.1425730.
Bowen, C. (1998). Developmental phonological disorders. A practical guide for families and
teachers. Melbourne: ACER Press.
Butterworth, B. (2005). The development of arithmetical abilities. The Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 46(1), 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j. 1469-7610.2004.
00374.x.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed.. Hillsdale, NJ:
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 64 (2019) 101054
Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
Cole, C. F., Arafat, C., Tidhar, C., Tafesh, W. Z., Fox, N. A., Killen, M., & Yung, F. (2003).
The educational impact of Rechov Sumsum/Shara'a Simsim: A sesame street televi-
sion series to promote respect and understanding among children living in Israel, the
West Bank, and Gaza. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 27, 409–422.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01650250344000019.
Cole, C. F., & Lee, J. H. (2016). The sesame effect: The global impact of the longest street in the
world. New York: Routledge.
Dosman, C. F., Andrews, D., & Goulden, K. J. (2012). Evidence-based milestone ages as a
framework for developmental surveillance. Paediatric Child Health, 17(10), 561–568.
https://doi.org/10.1093/pch/17.10.561.
Engle, P. L., Fernald, L. C., Alderman, H., Behrman, J., O'Gara, C., Yousafzai, A., ... Iltus,
S. (2011). Strategies for reducing inequalities and improving developmental out-
comes for young children in low-income and middle-income countries. The Lancet,
378, 1339–1353. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60889-1.
Feldman, R. S. (1998). Child development. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Fisch, S. M. (2000). A capacity model of children's comprehension of educational content
on television. Media Psychology, 2(1), 63–91. https://doi.org/10.1207/
S1532785XMEP0201_4.
Fisch, S. M. (2014). Children's learning from educational television: Sesame street and beyond.
London, UK: Routledge.
Gleason, J. B. (2000). The development of language (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Heckman, J. J. (2011). The economics of inequality: The value of early childhood edu-
cation. American Educator, 35, 31–35.
Huston, A. C., & Wright, J. C. (1996). Educating children with television: The forms of the
medium. In D. Zillmann, J. Bryant, & A. C. Huston (Eds.). Media family and children:
Social scientific, psychodynamic, and clinical perspectives (pp. 73–84). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Irfan, A., Karamchandani, A., Kohli, A., & Jain, V. (2016). The preschool promise: The
opportunity to transform learning outcomes for India's working poor. Boston: FSG.
Kearney, M. S., & Levine, P. B. (2015). Early childhood education by MOOC: Lessons from
sesame street. Working Paper 21229Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic
Research.
Kirkorian, H. L., Wartella, E. A., & Anderson, D. R. (2008). Media and young children's
learning. The Future of Children, 18, 39–61. https://doi.org/10.1353/foc.0.0002.
Lauricella, A. R., Gola, A. A. H., & Calvert, S. L. (2011). Toddlers' learning from socially
meaningful video characters. Media Psychology, 14, 216–232. https://doi.org/10.
1080/15213269.2011.573465.
Mares, M. L. (2006). Repetition increases children's comprehension of television content –
Up to a point. Communication Monographs, 73, 216–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/
03637750600693464.
Mares, M. L., & Pan, Z. (2013). Effects of Sesame Street: A meta-analysis of children's
learning in 15 countries. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 34, 140–151.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2013.01.001.
Newcomb, A. F., & Collins, W. A. (1979). Children's comprehension of family role por-
trayals in televised dramas: Effects of socioeconomic status, ethnicity, and age.
Developmental Psychology, 15, 417–423.
Rees, N., Chai, J., & Anthony, D. (2012). Right in Principle and in Practice. A Review of
the Social and Economic Returns to Investing in Children. UNICEF Social and
Economic Policy Working Paper. New York: UNICEF.
Singh, T., Sharma, S., & Nagesh, S. (2017). Socio-economic status scales updated for
2017. International Journal of Research in Medical Sciences, (7), 3264–3267. https://
doi.org/10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20173029.
WHO, World Health Organization (2007). Early child development: A powerful equalizer.
Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.
Woltman, H., Feldstain, A., MacKay, J. C., & Rocchi, M. (2012). An introduction to
hierarchical linear modeling. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 8,
52–61. https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.08.1.p052.
World Bank (2019). Primary school starting age. Retrieved from https://data.worldbank.
org/indicator/se.prm.ages.
Yazejian, N., & Peisner-Feinberg, E. S. (2009). Effects of a preschool music and movement
curriculum on children's language skills. NHSA Dialog, 12(4), 327–341. https://doi.
org/10.1080/15240750903075255.