Film and Radio Guide (Oct 1945-Jun 1946)

June, 1946 FILM AND RADIO GUIDE 25 "When Will You Visual Instructionists Teach Children to Use Maps, Charts, Globes, Specimens, and Models?" BY B. A. AUGHINBAUGH Direcl'or, Slide & Film Exehonge, Ohio State Department of Education This question, or some variation of it, has been hurled at me many times. I usually reply that, not being one of the so-called “visual instructionists,” I am unable to answer. This of course leaves the would-be heckler rocking on his heels. And while he rocks, I ask what was done about this detail of education, to which he apparently attaches so much importance, before the year 1929, the year which saw the birth of this non-descript creature called a “visual instructionist.” Surely maps, charts, globes, specimens, and models existed far back in history — especially models. It appears that either the questioner places great stress on the importance of the so-called “visual instructionists” as discoverers, or that the human race for a long time was unimpressed as to the value of maps, charts, globes, and specimens, not to mention the models. If this is the case, then perhaps it ivas, after all, Hollywood that discovered their existence— -at least the models, and perchance some of the specimens. This approach merely intends to lead up to the thought which Sir Walter Scott so well expressed in Marmion: “Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive.” The “visual instructionist” is not going to teach anyone anything. I have the very latest edition of two unabridged dictionaries and neither one recognizes such a word as “instructionist.” If anyone is going to instruct anyone about maps, globes, or charts, that person will be one versed in those subjects using them, or a cartographer. If anyone is going to instruct anyone concerning specimens, it will be a person versed in the particular type of work to which the given specimens belong. These persons may be biologists, geologists, chemists, bakers, bankers, or candlestick makers, but they will not be “visual instructionists.” And as for “models”— well, that field is broad, high, short, medium, ugly, and (oft-times) one of sheerest pulchritude. To embrace it all, or them all, this so-called “visual instructionist” must indeed be one of many parts. Indeed he would be that paragon who could represent Charity itself, for most assuredly he knoweth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, and endureth all things — including the models! There “just ain’t no sich animal” this side of the Pearly Gates. It is our oft-repeated opinion that the sooner we forget “visual education” and “visual instruction” the sooner we shall be free from the absurd connotations such illogical diction prompts and deserves. A dual existence can get more than a bat into trouble. I prefer to remain a teacher, a teacher of a given subject or subjects; a teacher who uses books, maps, charts, specimens, models, lantern slides, motion pictures, the phonograph, the radio, television, and travel, or ivhatever is available, to put across most efficiently the lesson I am teaching. But knowing the motion picture intimately as I do, and knowing its history, its place in the evolution of human communication, and its efficiency with respect to man’s psychological aspects and behavior, I know it is any teacher’s master tool, because it is the last and fairest fruit on the long-growing tree of communication — the last qualitative gain to communication. Unfortunately there exist some who make a living by prolonging this deception and others who are too lazy or cowardly to