Educational screen & audio-visual guide (c1956-1971])

Films Should Be Tested 75^ ^0% 2% $0% 9% \6% y / / / / / 95?, 581 fey LeRoy Ford, production Supervisor, Audio-Visual Aids Dept., Sunday School Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, Nashville, Tennessee. Film A Filjn B Film C ==s Questions on facts. Questions on central truths, Scores for Three Religious Films IT is impossible to make an effective study-guide without first testing the materials with the age or interest-group for which the film was prepared! . In two successive summers the author has tested the effectiveness ol three Bible films used with two separate groups of junior-age (grades 4, 5, 6) boys and girls. There were 75 juniors in the first group and 132 in the second group. While all juniors did not take all the tests, some 450 test papers were evaluated. The tests were given under similar conditions in actual teaching situations. Factual questions, and questions relating to the central truths of the films, were asked. No thought was given to compiling the information in report form until after the scores revealed some alarming information Here are some of my conclusions. Unlearning. A film on Samson, in addition to dramatizing the story, specifically attributed Samson's strength to God; yet only 13 of 140 pupils caught the significance of this. Most of the 127 who answered incorrectly said Samson's strength came from his long hair. Similar responses in similar films indicate that mucli mjormation which has been learned in previous years must be unlearned if teaching with films is to be effective. Prior Teachings. After seeing a film on the call of Moses, the boys and grls were asked, "How can you find out what God wants you to do or to be?" The film gave two answers — prayer and Bible reading. Of the 60 juniors tested, 47 percent gave prayer alone as the answer, 25 percent gave Bible reading alone, and 15 percent mentioned both Bible reading and prayer. The neglected emphasis on Bible reading in previous training may have been responsible for the low scores. Would we not be safe in concluding that in cases where previous training has emphasized only one of two associated truths, the retention value of the less familiar idea is reduced? Drama is Not Enough. Of a group of 66 juniors who saw a film pertaining to Naaman, only 40 percent could answer this question on the central truth: "Why did Naaman hesitate to do what the prophet told him to do?" Only 44 percent could make the application implied in, "Why do so many people hesitate to believe on Jesus?" We may conclude that dramatization and statement of central truths do not necessarily guarantee assimilation. First Fact Sticks. In the film presenting the story of Samson, definitions were given, in quick succession, of a Nazarite and a Philistine. Sixty-four percent of 140 juniors answered the first factual question correctly, but only 39 percent could define a Philistine. It is concluded that in the presentation of facts in quick succession the first fact presented is apt to have more retention value than subsequent facts. In this case the subsequent fact was relatively unimportant but the results would have been similar if the fact had been vitally important. Film Effectiveness Varies. It is evident that similar films with similar formats may vary in their effectiveness. The acconipanying graph shows the relative effectiveness of the presentation of basic factual material and central truths in three films— A, B, and C. It will be noted that retention of facts is considerably better than detection of central truths. Whether there is significance in the parallel in retention of facts and central truths might be debatable. However, on the basis of the 450 tests used in this study, it seems that weakness or strength in one area indicates a corresponding rating in other areas. No film is pedagogically perfect, and in the hands of a poor teacher it becomes even less perfect. Film effectiveness could be improved by use of guides based upon a testing program involving the age group for whom the films are designed. EdScreen & AV Guide — February, 1959 75