Moving Picture Age (Jan-Dec 1922)

The NATIONAL ACADEMY of VISUAL INSTRUCTION OFFICERS President: F. W. REYNOLDS, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah Vice-Preeident: G. E. CONDRA, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Neb. Secretary: J. V. ANKENEY, University of Missouri, Columbia, Mo. Treasurer: CHARLES ROACH, Iowa State College, Ames, Iowa EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE W. B. DUDLEY, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wiscontin F. W. REV\OLDS, University of Utah, Salt Lake City. Utah G. E. CONDRA, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska DUDLEY GRANT HAYS, Assistant Superintendent of Schools, Chicago W. M. GREGORY, Cleveland School of Education, Cleveland W. C. CROSBY, State Department of Education, Raleigh, North Carolina A. G. BALCOM, Assistant Superintendent of Schools, Newark, New Jersey A department conducted by the Secretary for the purpose of disseminating Academy news and thought [A paper by A. P. Hollis, member N. A. V. I.; Specialist, Visual Instruction Service, North Dakota Agricultural College, Fargo.] THE TEACHING VALUE OF THE FILM A NY evidence as to the teaching value of the product we dis/\ tribute is of interest to educational film distributors, for / % those of us in visual-instruction departments are more than ■*■ "^ distributors — we are selectors, appraisers, critics, and, to an increasing extent, producers. It fell to me a few days ago to give a brief talk, at a normal school I visited, on the visual-instruction service at our college. I spoke of the great need of real evidence of the superior teaching values we believe the film to possess. When I had finished, the president said he was surprised to listen to a visualinstructionist who admitted that there was need of evidence, and who didn't claim the earth for the eye. Regarding Authenticity of Claims One of the things we can do is sift out the rather loose claims now floating around in the visual-instruction magazines and get them down to earth. Overstatement in the end will do our cause no good. One film magazine printed on its front cover a diagram which had a scientific look and which stated that, according to experimental psychologists, 87 per cent of our impressions came through the eye — leaving 7 per cent for hearing, 3 per cent for touch, and so on. I wrote the editor and asked him to name one of the experimental psychologists. He was unable to give one name. A little later this magazine published in large letters the statement that "The nerve from the eye to the brain is 22 times as strong as the nerve from the ear to the brain." It was a nervy statement, and I asked the editor to give me his authority. He cited a prominent manufacturer who had used it in a speech. The manufacturer, when appealed to, said he saw it in a newspaper — which was reporting some remarks of the village clergyman. I have some acquaintance with psychological literature and have taken my term in the psychological laboratory, but I was unable to find authority for these statements and diagrams ; and so, even the valid claims of our order are not taken seriously in the educational world. Prof. Shepherd, Mr. Egner, and others who are instigating schoolroom and laboratory experiments under control conditions are doing a valuable service. Any earnest teacher may shed light on this question, who is willing to use the safeguards science throws about all experimentation. Many questions have yet to be answered concerning the use of films in the classroom. Here are some of them: How low in the grades is the film of value — kindergarten? first grade? third? What is the effect of not being able to read titles, as in first grades? Is the titleless film possible for such grades? What modification of the form of response is necessary in these grades? Is the living teacher more necessary in instruction in lower grades than in upper? What is the workable number limit of students in a laboratory? classroom? for oral teaching? visual teaching? In a given subject of study, what topics lend themselves most readily to screen treatment? Where does screen treatment become forced and absurd — in geometry? grammar? To what extent does observation replace manipulation in laboratory work — or screen demonstration replace classroom demonstration? Problems of the type of projector and accessories abound but will not be discussed here, except to mention the cool-light type that permits the stoppage of the film for re-view, more deliberate study, and leisurely comment and quiz — thus approaching the slide in educational possibilities. Here is a sample of the type of experiment needed to be performed by teachers and investigators in all types of schools. Being engaged in study-center work from the college, I was able to work with a small selected group of public-school teachers, all experienced and all normal-school graduates or better, in a small town of 2,000 people. The following safeguards were adopted : 1. A control group of equal mentality taught in the usual way was separated from the film group in each room. 2. Films were selected dealing with topics that had apparently not been presented before, or a year or more had elapsed between presentations. 3. Film material was graded in difficulty. 4. The same teacher taught similar groups by both methods. 5. The time given each type of lesson was approximately the same. 6. Groups were not allowed to compare notes before response. 7. Written response was immediate or nearly so, and a time record was kept. 8. In the primary grade oral responses were taken down verbatim by the teacher, for both groups. 9. Phases of the investigation had been discussed with the teachers several weeks preceding the experiment and the importance of controlled conditions, including pre-possessions, discussed. There were certain elements in this experiment that escaped control. One was the previous instruction and out-of-school experiences of the children. In the primary grade especially, nearly all of the film group knew the story of "Jack and the Beanstalk." and some knew it in quite a different way from the film story. We should have taken a less common story — but this was what was available. This particular shadowgraph also was an excerpt from a Ford Educational Weekly. Since the primary children could neither read nor write, the teacher took down verbatim the responses of her children ; these were unique and indicated the need for special investigations in primary films. There were found to be wide differences in the previous knowledge of the story on the part of the children from different homes. These characteristics decided me to eliminate the primary grade from the average, but the data is set down as a matter of interest. The striking fact to be noted here was the great part the voice and presence of the teacher played in primary instruction. Another element that was not properly controlled was the correlation between the film story and the story as told by the teacher. I had indicated this correlation, but found that the two stories as actually given had a number of points of difference. This was a serious error and reduced the conclusive quality of the experiment. In future trials I will have the teachers write out both stories beforehand, thus enabling me to evaluate the amount of correlation in advance of the lessons. In the eighth grade the slide lecture was used instead of the simple story to get comparative value of slides and films ; this constitutes too wide a variant to admit it in the general average. After eliminating the primary and eighth grades to get constant elements of control, we secured fairly uniform conditions in the two fourth grades and one fifth grade. Here the average grades of the written reproductions were as follows : Film Group 83^ per cent Story Group 83 per cent In an experiment like this, where the conditions are so difficult to control, a variation of x/z point may be ignored, so that the results may be taken in this instance to denote practical equality in teaching power between the film and the story. This apparently mild result is a far cry from the claim of 87 per cent for instruction through the eye and 7 per cent through the ear — or the nerve from the eye to the brain being 22 times as strong as the nerve from the ear to the brain. The conclusion is in contrast to the Detroit results, where the film group scored 11 per cent better than the story group, in a lesson that took only one-third the time to present. The superior editing of the film and the newness of the facts presented undoubtedly accounted for much of this result. 22