| Abstract: | Conclusions For the population of subjects, and the films and kinescope recordings used in this series of experiments, it made little
or no difference whether a given film was represented as being a “kinescope recording” or a training film, or whether a given
kinescope was represented as being a “training film” or a kinescope recording of a TV program.
This study was in no sense a comparison of the teaching effectiveness of training films and kinescope recordings as such.
Since we did not have a film and a kinescope presenting the same material we could not compare the instructional effectiveness
of a film and a kinescope.
The results suggest, however, that substantial learning resulted from seeing all the films and kinescope recordings used in
the study, but the exact learning gains, as measured by pre-and post-tests, are not solely dependent on the films or kinescopes,
but include also the effect of the pretests.
A possible reason for the discrepancy between these results and those of Jackson is that the “novelty effect” of television
has “worn off” since the date of his study (April 1952).
The reluctance of audio-visual communication researchers to replicate previous experiments has doubtless resulted in the acceptance
of many invalid conclusions. Missing from social science research is that drive which is one of the characteristics of research
in the physical sciences: to either verify or refute previous findings by repeating the experiment. In this study such a replication
has been made of an earlier experiment—and with different results. Paul M. Hurst, Jr. is an instructor of psychology at Idaho
State College. This report is based on a thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of requirements for the Master of Science
degree at Pennsylvania State University. |
