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

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

editorial This Ours X F YOUR reading time is limited this month, turn first to page 706. Henry Ruark's incisive report of the happenings of Year Two of this Decisive Decade is "command" reading. You'll see that at year's end there's more confusion than resolution about the problems of the audiovisual field— or is it the "communications" field, or "instructional materials," or "new media?" Is "technology" the new magic word? Or doesn't it make any difference what you call "this field of ours?" Certainly this confused and unresolved problem of names will persist throughout the coming year. Our national associations con T^irf^lri tinue efforts to define scope and interest. Phrase makers struggle ^ It/lvl with definitions, and people makers still try to carve the single mold f to fit the specialist of "this field." Q J Why don't we face the reality that people in "this field" are differ ent—every one from the other? They have difiFerent interests, different training, and di£Ferent competencies. Likewise the difiFerlng purposes and concepts of their institutions dictate different roles for specialists in "this field." What belongs in? What's out? Take educational broadcasting for a specific. Is this an integral part of the instructional materials-audiovisual-communications field? No matter what your theory is, or what the book says, consider this fact: At the recent 38th Conference of the National Association of Educational Broadcasters more than /tue hundred people concerned with educational communications were registered. Of these, only seven— count them— onlij seven have the word "audiovisual" in their titles. I saw at NAEB not more than a dozen people who likely will also attend the DAVI meeting in Denver. Is this bad? Good? We don't know and cannot say. But we hope that knowing this fact can lead to better understandings of where we are and where we're going. We think there should be much less concern for finding the universal all-inclusive title for our groups and the people in them. We should encourage diversity rather than unity in what we call ourselves. Our titles for positions and departments should reflect as precisely as possible our responsibilities, our interests, and maybe our aspirations. If broadcasting is part of the job description and responsibility, the title should show or imply this. A manager of an educational television station should not be called a Director of Educational Communications. Nor should a manager of a film library be called a Director of Instructional Messages. Prestige and honor should be sought through performance rather than titles! jj J /^ jy J Speaking of communications— and who isn't these days— I attempt Jr'aUl C J\eea ^j ^^^ ^^^^ ^.■^^ ^^^-^.^ j^^^^g ^f ^ ^^^ magazine titled MODERN COM MUNICATIONS. Obviously "modern communications" seemed a part of "this field" of ours, or we a part of it. But the words and phrases were strange and blocked understandings: sound columns, sequential message processor, internal stored program, communications network, messages of all lengths and widths! Is this us? Is this a part of our field? Am I supposed to know the meanings of tliese things? But one message did come through. Maybe what we need most in the coming Year Three of the Decisive Decade, to resolve confvisions, is a "squelch circuit!" MODERN COMMUNICATIONS says "the squelch circuit prevents an objectional burst of noise operation." Sounds like a mighty useful device. We'll investigate. Educational Screen and Audiovisual Guide — December, 1962 705