| Abstract: | 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. |
