Television and education: A review of research

Summary The existing research on television of interest to educators was analyzed and found to be grouped into four general categories: (a) studies of the general social effects of television, (b) content analyses, (c) studies of the educational effects of television, and (d) technical studies. Studies in each of these four categories were reviewed and generalizations drawn from them. No attempt was made to review related research that is, no doubt, applicable to the problems of television. For example, the vast amount of research information developed in the audio-visual field during the past 30 years was not touched. Future investigators will find that the existing television research and the existing audio-visual research provide only a sketch map of the field of audio-visual communication. To use these important instruments wisely, and this is particularly true of television, it is necessary that we know and understand much more. This is the challenge for future research. To the knowledge of the editor, this is the first comprebensive review of educational television research to be published. The organizing of the research into four categories—general social effects, content analyses, educational effects, and technical problems—the rather detailed reviewing of the results, and the drawing of general conclusions should greatly aid the educator in understanding the unique contributions of educational television. An attempt will be made in future issues of Audio-Visual Communication Review to supplement this review of research by regularly publishing, in “Research Abstracts,” reviews of the most recent television studies. Dr. James D. Finn is Associate Professor of Education and Chairman of the Audio-Visual Education Department, University of Southern California. This paper was originally prepared at the request of the California State Department of Education for inclusion in theBrochure of Background Materials: Educational Television for the Governor’s Conference on Educational Television, held in Sacramento, California, December 15–16, 1952. It was necessary to develop the material in a very short time, and the writer wishes to express his indebtedness to F. Dean McClusky and May V. Seagoe of the University of California, Los Angeles, and to Lester F. Beck and Nicholas Rose, his colleagues at the University of Southern California, as well as to several of his graduate students for helping in locating copies of the studies reviewed.     

ANALYZING MATH‐TO‐MASTERY THROUGH BRIEF EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS

The current study evaluated the effectiveness of individualized math‐to‐mastery (MTM) interventions, selected though brief experimental analysis (BEA), at increasing math fluency skills for three elementary‐aged females. As MTM has only been investigated as a multicomponent intervention, the present study utilized BEA to identify those specific components that led to math skills gains in the most efficient manner possible. BEA results indicated that for two of three participants only a partial MTM intervention was necessary to prompt fluency gains, while the entire intervention was the most effective for the third. During extended analysis all three participants displayed math skills gains above those seen during repeated baseline assessments. Results are discussed in terms of further refining MTM through BEA procedures so as to individually target math skill deficits by considering both intervention effectiveness and efficiency.     

Learning Disability Identification Criteria and Reporting in Empirical Research: A Review of 2001–2013

This review documents the learning disabilities (LD) identification criteria and procedures utilized in empirical research including students with LD published from 2001 to 2013 in three journals dedicated to the study of LD. Results reveal several troublesome findings related to transparency in reporting and the coherence of the LD construct. Nearly one‐third of all empirical studies investigating LD did not describe who identified the participants as having LD or how they were identified. Information on the specific area of LD was similarly lacking. Across studies, identification criteria varied widely. Moving forward, we contend that greater transparency and consistency with regard to the definition and operationalization of the construct of LD in empirical research is necessary if solidification of the scientific construct of LD is to be achieved.