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

AUDIO by Max U. Bildersee Point VI Program The National Tape Repository Recording Service, reports that its sixth function is "To evaluate, periodically, the organization and operation of the service, and the tapes in the master collection." And this is under way at the present time. Dr. Robert E. de Kieffer, Director of the Bureau of AudioVisual Instruction at the University of Colorado and Chairman of the National Tape Repository Committee, has circulated an extensive, searching questionnaire to more than forty tape libraries in the United States. More than thirty states are represented in the mailing list developed for this project. IF you operate a tape duplicating service for schools and/ or libraries, and if you have not received a questionnaire, please communicate with Dr. de Kieffer and participate in this survey. The survey seeks to discover the nature and extent of library service to schools and libraries; the extent of collections and the changes in policy and practice which may be necessary to make the National Tape Repository services most valuable to users. The National Tape Repository, through its questionnaire, seeks specific information on whether existing tape libraries serving localities and regions duplicate tapes for educational users. It is hoped that, gaining this data, the NTR will widely disseminate the information to the advantage of both schools as well as libraries, and the duplicating/ distributing agencies. Service available and unused becomes a monument to the desire to serve— and nothing more. The potential user is injured because opportunities to enrich instruction are lost, and the intended server literally wastes valuable time and energy, accomplishing little or nothing. Assuming that most tape libraries do serve other than immediate local users, the NTR further asks about charges, the number of titles in the master tape collection, and the availability of a descriptive catalogue presumably designed to assist schoolmen and librarians in making good decisions concerning duplicated tapes to be secured for immediate local application and detail concerning service. It is becoming increasingly apparent that biJd lists of materials— titles and technical information only— are wholly inadequate to the needs of modern schools and librarians. Increasing student maturity, and heightened teacher sophistication require that evaluation data, application information and utilization suggestions must be included if wise selections are to be made at the local level. We are not impressed with numbers. We would rather know that there are ten valuable tapes available upon demand— and know the worth of these— than know that there are hundreds of tapes at hand of unknown quality. Teachers cannot be called upon to evaluate the tremendous quantities of audio, visual and textual materials now ofiFered for schoolroom applications; they must rely upon established services and other reliable .sources of data and information in making selections. It is no longer adequate to close one's eyes and use a pin to select such materials! Indeed, it never was, but today the need for quick reference information and opinion is greater than ever before. We regret that this questionnaire at no point asks respondents to detail evaluative procedures employed. We discern a trend— a tide— which we wholeheartedly approve toward the publication of shorter, more concise, lists of useful instructional materials. Our policy in "AUDIO" has been to bring to your attention useful, worthwhile recordings and specifically to state potential instructional applications. This becomes evident in the nature of the suggestions sought concerning National Tape Repository policy and activities. Dr. de Kieffer and his committee invites respondents to state which of three NTR services would be of greatest service to local and regional tape libraries. The options offered are: 1. That NTR contain a permanent master collection of all taped materials suitable for classroom use regardless of taped age, source or sponsorship. 2. That NTR contain a limited collection of highly selected tape materials which may be revised periodically. 3. That NTR contain a limited collection of highly selected tape materials which would be discarded yearly and restocked with a completely new collection. It seems to us that a compromise involving all three plans must be worked out. The idea of collecting all taped materials suitable for classroom use, and retaining these on a permanent basis is fraught with perils— and has led to current NTR problems. The original plan for the National Tape Repository called for tapes to be submitted to state officials for immediate evaluation before being forwarded to the national library. But state officials, with justification, were unwilfing to act as critics in this regard. Further, there was the great danger that already overworked state officials would and could only superficially examine materials, and might therefore be prone to approving everything— rejecting nothing —and rely on others to imdertake final appraisals. Dangerous— and the result has been a collection of 'titles,' largely or totally unevaluated— and probably moving from the shelves at a disappointingly slow rate. And surely there are many useful recordings being annually rewound to protect the tapebut serving no useful purpose other than an archive which may someday be studied. The second alternative shows great promise. The NTR must continue to serve the schools of the nation. The shelves should contain highly selected materials. These should be placed there only after evaluation — and should be re-evaluated against changing standards at regular intervals. Such audition and evaluation cannot be the responsibihty of one individual. The audition reports and recommendations of several individuals are required if this service is to be useful. The reviewer should wilfingly state negative and/ or positive opinions with or without anonymity as the price of frank appraisal. A responsibility of the reviewer is to set a date for later re-review. It seems obvious that, on the one hand, the poet reading his own work need not be annually restudied in terms of classroom appfications. On the other hand, much material may be timely in nature and require annual restudy. Who is to say that a recording devoted to space exploration made today will be accurate and adequate as little as a year hence? The policy of re-evaluation must be fluid rather than static if it is to be useful. It is obvious that no recording should be permitted merely to sit on the shelf— unused— requiring maintenance. Re-review is in order and can take more than one form. It can be undertaken by a panel of critics. But 660 Educational Screen and Audiovisual Guide — November, 1962