NAEB Newsletter (July 1958)

do—things which are therefore left undone principally for reasons of present expediency? Let me illustrate. Henry R. Cassirer, Director of Radio and Television for UNESCO, in the fall issue of Audio-Visual Communication Review, presents a very challenging analysis of the peculiar potentials of the different media, comparing what each can do, or best do, with what other media can do. He points out that this is peculiarly an age of change, speed, motion, instability, and lack of permanency. The printed media, hard as they try, cannot convey the most dramatic dynamics of this age. Print “freezes.” It is just as inadequate to convey movements, pres¬ sures, and change as still pictures are, in comparison with moving pictures. Does this not contain implica¬ tions for our use of these new media? Not to teach the social sciences, geography or any of the other subject matters as they have so far been taught, but in a new way in which we finally have the tools adequate to the job? At present, we are inclined to start with the printed syllabus, and use TV essentially as a visual aid. I think TV challenges us to think about at least two more questions: 1) With TV as a tool, is it not possible that for some subjects, ana at some levels, TV should be the text, and printed media should be the “printed aids” or “verbal aids” to do the “enlarging upon” what TV can perhaps best present as a principal or primary medium? Are we sure that eventually TV will not revolutionize the concept of education as completely as the textbook (which created the classroom con¬ cept of today) did a few hundred years ago? Or should TV be used to “freeze” into permanency present procedures and practices. 2) Since TV can now do many things which we previously did not have the tools to do, I wonder if the curriculum of ten years hence will not look quite different from today’s? When we got the automobile and misuses or care¬ lessness in its use began to cause anxiety, we brought the automobile into the educational plant and began to teach driver-training. When the pressures of com¬ merce on the school system became great enough we began to teach typing and office procedures. Little by little the schools have taken over responsibilities which industry and the guilds used to assume: giving the individual the training which his eventual em¬ ployer needs to have him have. I wonder if the needs of our time, and the multiplicity of needs for decision¬ making on the part of the individual as a citizen do not justify a re-analysis of how large a vocational role the school can play in view of both the pro¬ liferation of vocational specializations, and the great vast areas of (presently neglected) guidance in de¬ cision-making as a responsible citizen, the use of leisure time as divided between entertainment and in¬ dividual self-development (which I believe can also be. “recreational”). Our generation was caught defenseless by tele¬ vision particularly. Considering the advertiser as the “offense” and the viewer as the “defense,” the offense has quickly outstripped the defense. The latter is still not in any way responsibly equipped to cope with the present situation. There was a day, not too far in the past, when people would “believe it”, if it was in print. Thanks to the schools, and education, people have been given guidance in coping with the printed media. Children are taught to distinguish between good and bad writ¬ ing . They are taught appreciation of literature. They are beginning to be given clues regarding “phoniness” and how to recognize it. Nearly every teacher in the educational process becomes an English teacher (of the written and printed word). Is the time not here when we should teach how to distinguish good and bad in the electronics media, too? In view of the time devoted to television and radio as sources of infor¬ mation, senses of values, and entertainment, are we not overdue for courses in analysis and criticism in, and guidance in coping with, these powerful media? Can we do this (which I consider education for citizenship) while still retaining all the vocational and other courses we now have? Or is our national prestige and mentality not yet in sufficient jeopardy to justify such a step? If such a responsibility is seen by education (and I can think of no one else who is obligated to assume it), won’t all teachers need to be trained to teach this broad nonwritten new “language” responsibility much as all teachers now teach written English? These are some of the questions I would raise about TV’s role in education. And those who know me well enough know that I ask you to remember radio as well as television in all my considerations. I would hope that we will all participate in far deeper thinking than how TV can do the same job better (though this is part of it) or cheaper (medical service is a better —but not cheaper—than it used to be; is it not worth it?), or for purposes of “doing it by TV” merely in order to justify larger TV staffs and budgets. What we need is better education, not cheaper education. What we need is education which will help our students to be better citizens in the year 2,000. Are we sure that the uses we are thinking about for ETV today will do that? * * * * 45 - In future columns I would like to discuss with you other problems, from effects and possible educational uses of video tape, the redistribution of faculty per- JULY, 1958 3