The Educational screen (c1922-c1956])

1 feaLM 1 1MB ^ niB |Hft •»« M '^HbV^^ m '^^HhhM^^ ■ Hl^^B Aijdio-Viiual Center, Indiana University Author Carolyn Suss (right) and Betty Stoops preview and evaluate at Indiana University's Audio-Visual Center. of the country and film libraries under the supervision of other agencies and individuals are following similar procedures and are just as carefully evaluating and selecting the films they distribute. Why Select Films? Since it is neither desirable nor practicable for a single film library to circulate all available films, selection must take place. Within the last ten years, the number of educational film titles has more than tripled. This increased activity in film production has made available several different motion pictures on the same subject for the same grade level. Whereas not so many years ago, a film librarian or potential user was content to be able to locate one film title on a given subject and grade level, today he is frequently bewildered by finding five, six, seven, or more films covering essentially the same content. Then, too, the users of films from a film library have every right to expect that the library carefully and critically appraise and approve the educational value of the films it distributes. An adequate, well-balanced, and functional film library doesn't "just happen." The development of a film library which meets the needs and standards of its users is the result of careful and discriminatory selection. Since all of the film libraries studied report an increase in the amount of use of films from their libraries, they must recognize their responsibility in building libraries that continue to meet the needs of their users. During 1950-1951 the twelve libraries totaled 503,625 bookings, which on the basis of a conservative estimate represents the staggering total of 15,108,750 pupil hours of instruction or the equivalent of the teaching time of more than 400 full-time teachers. The fact that the libraries studied are not accepting all new films produced is indicated by their reports that they previewed over 8,000 films during 1950-1951 and only 3,299 new titles — slightly less than half the number of titles previewed — were added to the libraries. Finally, much of the progress in film production can be attributed to the film selection which has taken place on the various levels of use. Producers, themselves, welcome reports from users of their films. Since, for economic reasons if for no other reasons, producers must produce films which will be used, they are guided by the reports from users. Classroom teachers often feel that reports of their experiences with films have little or no signifi cance. Such is not the case. Both libraries and producer: welcome them; they are a prime factor in improving thi quality of future films and film libraries. Who Selects Films? Film selection is indisputably being conducted in democratic manner. In none of the institutions studiet is a film library being built single-handedly. All librariei are successfully attempting to involve the maximun number of qualified evaluators in the evaluation process . In each of the universities the professional staff of tht film library possess some or all of the following compe tencies: (1) an understanding of the use of the motior picture for teaching purposes, (2) successful experiencf as a teacher or adult education leader, (3) knowledge' of content and uses of available motion pictures, (4) ability to analyze, interpret, and evaluate film content . and (5) administrative ability to maintain records anc i reports. Of the 39 staff members spending a major portion of their time in film evaluation and selection, six hold the doctor's degree, 27 have the master's degree, and 1 six have the bachelor's degree. Not only these staff members but also members of the faculty possessing training and experience in the content areas represented by the films, public school teachers who might find the films useful, and student teachers participate in film evaluation. The evaluation of the film per se is then being related'! to the needs and interests of the actual users. Duplicate' prints are being purchased on the basis of demand; and ' since more money is being spent for duplicate prints than for the initial prints, users themselves are responsible for the selection of a greater number of films than the personnel of the film library. The twelve libraries average almost three prints of each title in their libraries. They are distributing a combined total of 63,686 prints of 28,013 titles of motion pictures with an approximate replacement value of over four million dollars. What Criteria Are Being Used? Film evaluation, it is true, has developed indigenously. Yet essentially the same evaluative criteria are being used by the universities studied and, it is thought, are being and can be used by other agencies building libraries and by teachers interested in critically appraising the value of the films they are using. It should be noted, however, that all the criteria do not pertain to all films in the same degree. Each film is unique and calls for a specific frame of reference and evaluation. The criteria include: I. Psychological factors 1. Is the film conducive to audience identification and egoinvolvement? 2. Does the film provide a set which will give direction to behavior and provide incentives which individuals will strive to attain? 3. Is the main idea in the film developed in a constellation o( ideas which are mutually interbehaving and interacting? 4. Does the film provide for audience participation— covert as well as overt? 5. Does the film stimulate interest? II. Technical factors 1. Is the photographic quality sufficiently satisfactory to enable the audience to see the photographic symbols without undue concentration on the process of seeing? 2. Is the sound easily intelligible? 3. Are adequate orientational devices used? 4. Is the type of pictorial representation appropriate for the presentation of the main ideas in the film? 246 Educational Screen