Task, learner, and presentation interactions in television production

Task, Learner, and Presentation Interactions in Television Production

Gwen C, Nugent Thomas J. Tipton David W, Brooks

Gwen C. Nugent is an instructional designer with the Media Development Project for the Hearing Impaired at the Barkley Center, University of Nebraska, Lin- coln, NE 68583. Thomas ]. Tipton is a laboratory coordinator, and David W. Brooks is a professor, both with the Department of Chemistry, University of Nebraska.

What presentation format is best for promoting affective learning via televised instruction? This study showed that for college students, both on-camera authority/model figures and dramatizations can be effective. It also confirmed the importance of considering interactions between presentation method, learning characteristics, and subject matter.

ECTJ, VOL. 28, NO. 1, PAGES 30-38 ISSN 0148-5806

Instructional television producers and designers frequently are accused of basing production decisions on hunches and in- tuition rather than on principles devel- oped from theory or research. While the accusation may be justified, such behavior often arises from necessity, not desire. Television theory and research has not de- veloped to the point that it can be of prac- tical use to design teams. First, there sim- ply is no generalized theory of television teaching and learning. As Schramm (1977) has pointed out, what exists is a minimum of theory l imited in genera l i ty and applicability. Second, existing research on instructional television offers little help to producers.

While there have been more than 200 studies comparing televised instruction with conventional instruction, there has been relatively little research dealing with television production variables. To com- plicate the problem further, conclusions are hardly inspiring. In summarizing the literature in this area, Chu and Schramm (1974) concluded that "there is no clear evidence on the kind of variation in production techniques that significantly contribute to learning from instructional television" (p. 26).

Existing research does suggest that while vignettes and dramatized segments have been successful with children (Chu & Schramm, 1974), simple production tech-

TASK, LEARNER, AND PRESENTATION INTERACTIONS IN TELEVISION PRODUCTION 31

niques are more effective with college audiences (Barrington, 1972; Cobin & McIn- tyre, 1961; Dwyer, 1968). Dramatizations and magazine formats do not appear to have an advantage over more straightforward host/narrator presentations (Brown, Cavert, Craig, & Snodgrass, 1974; Car- penter & Greenhill cited in Reid & Mac- Lennan, 1967; Kazem, 1960; Mielke & Swinehart, 1976; Rock, Duval, & Murray, 1951).

Research in this area primarily has involved cognitive materials and often has failed to consider learner characteristics. Learning is a complex process involving the interaction of several variables. Recog- nizing the multivariate nature of the communication process, Salomon and Clark (1977) and Rhetts (1974) have suggested that media research should expect interaction effects between learner characteristics, task characteristics, and presentation methods. Anderson (1972) has elaborated on the need to consider the type of learning and objectives in designing mediated instruction: "There should be a conscious attempt to link production techniques to specific roles they might play in aiding particular types of learning with specific types of behavioral objectives" (p. 60). Lit- tle basic research has been conducted regarding the effectiveness of television in promoting affective learning, despite the suggestions of several theorists that television can be an effective way of presenting such instruction. Gagn6 has maintained that television can contribute to the learning of values and attitudes by presenting as models credible individuals who relate a personal situation in which one behavior or course of action was or had to be chosen over another (Gagn6, 1977, chap. 10; Schramm, 1977). Mielke (1970) has pro- posed that television can convey affective material more effectively than cognitive material. He also believes that a high de- gree of concreteness and simulation of di- rect experience are potential factors for successful television production.

This study investigated the effectiveness of four television formats in presenting affective television instruction to various college audiences. The four formats were (a) d ramat iza t ion , (b) on-camera host/

narrator, (c) authority/model testimonial, and (d) visuals with narration. The television resources were short segments presenting value issues related to scientific fields. Programs on two topics were produced in all four formats to test for differences resulting from subject matter. Drawing on the theoretical and conceptual frameworks of Gagn6 and Mielke, it was hypothesized that the dramatization and au thor i ty /model formats would be superior. The research strategy considered learner characteristics (course enrollment), task characteristics (program topic), and presentation methods (television format), in attempting to explicate more realisti- cally the impact of production techniques in television instruction.

METHOD

Subjects

Subjects were undergraduate students at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln en- rolled in the two basic mainstream chemistry courses, Chemistry 109 and 110. These courses are sequential ; s tudents must complete 109 before enroll ing in 110. Chemistry 109 students were beginning freshmen; Chemistry 110 students were primarily college sophomores. Class sections were randomly assigned by course to t reatment conditions. All sections but those meeting on Saturday were involved.

Instruments

The two instruments used in the study, one completed by the students and one by the teacher, were designed to measure program appeal and achievement of the instructional goals. One goal was that students become more aware of the ethical issue presented and recognize the importance of the underlying value. The second goal was that program segments elicit follow-up discussion, an indication of student involvement with the issues and their affective response. These goals were de- veloped from Krathwohl 's affective domain (Krathwohl, Bloom, & Masia, 1964) and represent the lower levels of hierar- chy, student awareness and response.

32 ECTJ SPRING 1980

The student questionnaire, which con- sisted of 17 Likert-type items (with a 5-point scale), was designed to measure achievement of the first instructional goal (affective learning) and program appeal. The affective learning variable was computed as an average of student response to five statements: (a) "The program presented issues relevant to my concerns." (b) "It is not important to discuss the issues presented in this program." (c) "The ideas presented in this program are of little value to me." (d) "The program stimulated my thinking." (e) "The issues presented in this program are important for me to consider." The five items were derived from a series of factor analyses conducted with pilot data obtained from summer school classes (N= 202). Analytic procedures showed these items to be measuring a common factor.

Students' overall ratings of the program served as a measure of program appeal, or student "liking" of the program. The re- maining items on the student questionnaire elicited response to specific program features--production quality, set, visuals, interest factor, and so forth. These items were intended to be used for descriptive purposes in interpreting the statistical data.

The teacher questionnaire asked for teachers' ratings of the effectiveness of the segment in eliciting follow-up discussion. The measure was intended to gauge how well the instruction prompted student involvement and response to the affective issues presented.

Experimental Design The study used a factorial design involving three independent variables:

1. Course enrollment--This measure represented s tudent enrollment in Chemistry 109 (Course I) or 110 (Course II).

2. Program topic--Programs on two separate value issues, ethical issues in research review and personal values in career selection, were produced.

3. Production format--Both program topics were produced in four formats. The four segments for each topic had the same

instructional intent, and all were open- ended in nature. The four formats were:

�9 Dramatization--The value issue was presented by dramatizing situations in which characters were faced with dilemmas requiring personal decisions or choices. For example, the dramatization of the research review topic depicted a conversation between a chemistry graduate student and a professor. The excited young researcher had just read a research report from a rival group and discovered that the competitors had missed an important point and were on the wrong track. The professor responded with a question: "As the reviewers, don' t we have a responsibil i ty to set them straight? . . . . It's not fair," the student argued. "The most we'll get for all our work will be a note or acknowledg- ment, and we found the key."

�9 Host-narrator--The value issue was presented by a male host/narrator on camera. He described in general terms the si tuat ion presented in the dramatization and posed the value question in a more straightforward manner. For example, the script for the research review program posed several questions regarding the ethical responsibilities of reviewers. The narrator described a si tuat ion in which a professor was asked to review a paper in the area of his own research and discovered that the researcher had missed an important point. The narrator then asked: "Does the re- viewer have a responsibility to point out the weaknesses? With research and publishing the key to success, does the person consider himself, or is the research the most important thing?"

�9 Authority/model "testimonial"--For both topics, a chemist related his personal experience in facing a situation and making a decision relevant to the value issue. The program for the research topic presented a chemist from the University of Nebraska describing an ethical dilemma he faced after re- ceiving a paper to review. His research group was working in the same

TASK, LEARNER, AND PRESENTATION INTERACTIONS tN TELEVISION PRODUCTION 33

area, and he knew that the rival group had overlooked a critical point. He verbalized his dilemma: "Should we tell them about their mistake? If we did tell them, they would probably still beat us to press. If we didn't tell them, we would not save them the embarrassment of later being discovered, and we would probably then assure ourselves of a publication."

�9 Visuals with narration--This version used the audio track from the host/ narrator segment. This narration was accompanied by video which had been recorded from 35 mm slides, most of which were shot during tap- ing of the dramatization segments.

All eight segments were produced and edited on 2-inch broadcast tape by the In-

structional Television Unit of Nebraska Educational Television.

A 4 x 2 x 2 factorial design was employed in which the four production formats were crossed with two program topics and two student course levels. Student responses were analyzed through a multivariate analysis of variance which considered the two dependent variables (affective learning and program appeal) si- multaneously. As recommended by Hummel and Sligo (1971), the significance testing procedure involved two steps. First the multivariate Fs were examined. If a multivariate result was significant, the separate univariate ratios and follow-up results were computed to determine where the significant effects were located.

Individual student scores rather than

TABLE 1 Mul t ivar ia te Analysis for P roduc t ion Format T rea tment Groups: S tudent Responses

Univariate Multivariate

Source~Measure MS df F F (df)

Course (A) Affect .02 1 .86 .64 (2,1995) Appeal .65 1 .44

Program Topic (B) Affect 5.32 1 8.21"* 20.55 (2,1995) . . . . Appeal 8.64 1 7.99**

Format (C) Affect 19.37 3 29.88 . . . . 31.32 (6,3990) . . . . Appeal 58.23 3 53.82 . . . .

A • Affect 8.19 1 12.63"** 6.43 (2,1995)** Appeal 7.00 1 6.47*

A • Affect .91 3 1.40 1.28 (6,3990) Appeal 2.25 3 2.08

B x C Affect 8.00 3 12.34 . . . . 6.67 (6,3990) . . . . Appeal 4.09 3 3.78*

A • 2 1 5 Affect .27 3 .41 .37 (6,3990) Appeal .72 3 .67

Within Affect .65 1996 Appeal 1.08 1966

*p < .05. **p < .01.

***p < .001. ****p < .0001.

TABLE 2 Mean Ratings of Affective Learning, Program Appeal, and Effectiveness of Eliciting Discussion, by Experimental Group

Student Ratings Teacher Ratings

Affective Program Experimental Group n Learning Appeal n Discussion

COURSE I Career Selection Topic 897 3.21 2.65 46 2.71

Visuals/Narration 211 3.14 2.46 11 2.55 Authority/Model 239 3.62 3.16 12 2.92 Host/Narrator 205 3.15 2.38 11 2.55 Dramatization 242 2.91 2.54 12 2.83

Research Review Topic 865 3.07 2.75 46 2.59 Visuals/Narration 208 2.92 2.42 11 2.45 Authority/Model 200 3.25 3.20 11 2.81 Host/Narrator 219 2.97 2.45 12 2.00 Dramatization 238 3.14 2.92 12 3.08

COURSE II Career Selection Topic 124 3.06 2.57 8 1.75

Visuals/Narration 47 3.08 2.55 3 1.67 Authority/Model 43 3.35 2.95 3 1.67 Host/Narrator 18 2.70 2.00 1 3.00 Dramatization 16 2.65 2.25 1 1.00

Research Review Topic 126 3.20 2.92 8 3.13 Visuals/Narration 34 3.25 2.85 2 4.00 Authority/Model 29 3.35 3.28 2 2.50 Host/Narrator 30 3.14 2.83 2 2.00 Dramatization 33 3.10 2.79 2 4.00

class scores were used for stat ist ical analyses involving student responses. This was considered appropriate because class scheduling procedures approximated ran- dom assignment. Support for this a priori decision was obtained from a post hoc analysis confirming that there were no pairwise differences between classes.

The second statistical analysis involved teacher ratings of class discussion and used the class as the statistical unit. Since there was only one dependent measure, univariate statistics were employed.

Procedure

Students viewed programs during their regular chemistry laboratory dasses, with their usual instructor as a part of ongoing instruction using television resources. Each class saw one segment dealing with career selection and the dealing with research review. All telecasts were viewed in color on 21-inch monitors.

Activities began with the instructor an- nouncing to the students that they-would watch a videotape and discuss its contents. Students then viewed the program and comple ted the s tudent ques t ionnai re . Teachers initiated discussion by asking the first of several questions previously provided. Lead-off questions for the four programs for each topic were identical. Teachers were instructed not to interfere with the discussion but to encourage the students to give their own impressions and opinions. When the discussion was over, instructors completed the teacher questionnaire.

RESULTS

Table 1 presents a summary of the multivariate results. The triple interaction was not significant; however, results revealed significant interactions involving program topic. Means for all dependent measures are presented in Table 2.

TASK, LEARNER, AND PRESENTATION INTERACTIONS IN TELEVISION Pi'~)DUCTION 35

Student Responses

The multivariate analysis yielded a significant interaction between program topic and format (Table 1). Although this interaction was due primarily to the affective l ea rn ing measure , bo th un iva r i a t e analyses were significant. As Figure 1 shows, there were differential effects for the dramatization format. For the affective learning measure, career selection segments were superior to research review segments in all formats except dramatization. Figure 1 also shows that for the measure of program appeal, drama was rated noticeably higher for the research review than for the careers topic.

Follow-up tests looked at simple main effects of each program topic. Since four tests were required, alpha was set at .01. All four F tests were significant. Scheff6 tests were employed to find which means were significantly different, with the significance level again set at .01. Among the four segments on career selection, the authority/model format was superior. Ap- peal and affective learning among students seeing a segment in this format were significantly greater than among s tudents v iewing programs in the other formats (critical difference model to visuals and model to drama: affect .23, appeal .30; critical difference model to host: affect .24, appeal .31). There were no s ignif icant pairwise differences between the other three formats on either dependent measure.

Comparisons for research review segments showed that students liked (appeal measure) the authority/model format significantly better than the host/narrator or visuals/narrat ion segments (critical difference .32), but not the dramatization. They also preferred the drama over the host/narrator and visuals/narration programs (critical difference .31). For the affective learning measure, the only significant differences were between the model and host/narrator and model and visuals/ narration (critical difference .25).

Table 1 also shows a significant interaction between course and program topic. Examination of the univariate statistics

FIGURE 1 Program Topic x Format Interaction: Appeal and Affective Learning Measures

OI i -

. .J ID >

2.2

36

34

3.2

Q. ~ 28

2.6

24

22

36 . , , \ 34 / \ / \

32 / ~

30

28

26

24

. . . . Careers Topic - - Research Topic

I I L I

Visuals Model Host Dram

and means revealed significant disordinal interactions for both the affective learning and appeal measures . Fo l low-up tests compared s tudent reactions to the two program topics by course. Since there were only two levels of the topic variable, a t test was used. Results showed that students in both courses preferred (appeal measure) the research review segments to those dealing with career selection, Course I: t (1760) = 2.00, p <.05; Course II: t (248) = 2.71, p < .01. There was also a significant difference in affective learning for the beginning students; career selection programs were more successful than those on research review, t (1760) = 2.79, p < .01. There were no between-topic differences in affective learning for the more advanced students.

Teacher Ratings

Teacher ratings of how well the instruction promoted follow-up discussion comprised

36 ECTJ SPRING t980

the final dependent measure and analysis. The 4 x 2 x 2 analysis of variance design involved the same independent variables used with the analyses of student data. Since there was only one dependent variable, however, univariate statistics were used. The only significant result was a disordinal interaction between course and program topic, F (1, 92) = 6.51, p < .05. Follow-up tests showed that the research review topic was significantly more effective than the careers topic in promoting d i s c u s s i o n in a d v a n c e d classes, t (6) = 2.65, p < .05. However, there was no difference in discussion of the two subjects for the beginning dasses.

DISCUSSION

Results of this study show that television can foster the learning of values and attitudes through the use of models com- municating personal situations involving behavioral choice. This authority/model testimonial format was superior to the host/narrator, visuals with narration, and, in one case, dramatization formats. Sup- port for the hypothesis that dramatization would also be an effective method for presenting affective instruction was not clear- cut: The dramatization dealing with research review was successful, but its coun- terpart on career selection was not.

Descriptive data support the statistical data. Student comments in response to open-ended questions illustrate the effectiveness of the authority/model format:

�9 Career select ion topic: I recent ly c h a n g e d m i d s t r e a m to a science major, and to know that this man could pull it off is important to me.

�9 Research review topic: The best program yet. It didn' t have a lot of confusing acting in it; just straightforward and to the point. You didn't have to fish for the idea.

Students also indicated that the model segment was interesting and that the level was appropriate. The only areas in which this format was considered inferior were set and production quality; the drama received higher ratings in those areas. This is not surprising considering that the sets for

the two model segments were minimal, whereas the dramat izat ions took place either on location or on a complete studio set. Fur thermore , the mode l segments were recorded with one camera from one angle, while the dramas were taped with three cameras or with one camera from more than one angle (film technique).

Descriptive data also provide an understanding of the differential effect of the dramatizations. The career selection program was unsuccessful because students did not understand the main point. As one student pointed out, "This program was really hazy. I had no idea what it was get- ting at." The vignette depicted two students working in chemistry laboratory class. Complaining that laboratory work was boring, the chemistry major expressed concern about missing a rock concert. The other student, a political science major, had similar feelings about missing a political rally. The program was intended to p rompt student thought about personal values and how they relate to choice of a major and career. The point was too subtle; in light of student misunderstanding, it is not surpr is ing that the more straightforward narration formats were more effective.

In view of the problems associated with the dramatization of the career selection issue, it is likely that the comparison of the four segments presenting the research review topic offer the more valid conclusions concerning format effectiveness. For this topic, students rated both the authority/ model and the drama segments higher (appeal measure) than the other two formats. Statistically, only the author i ty / model format was more effective in pro- rooting affective learning, but scores for both the model and drama formats were higher than those for the other two. These results are consistent with the descriptive data.

The student questionnaire included one statement aimed directly at assessing student reaction to format. Responses were consistent across both p rogram topics. Students liked the model format most, the dramatization second, the visuals/narration third, and the host/narrator least. They considered the host/narrator format "cut

TASK, LEARNER, AND PRESENTATION INTERACTIONS IN TELEVISION PRODUCTION 37

and dry" and "boring" and thought the use of television in this instance superflu- ous. "I could have just read the cards he was reading myself," said one. "I can't see why the lab teacher can't say the same thing and get just as much, maybe more, out of it," remarked another.

The success of the authority/model format may be partly attributable to the students' attaching greater credibility to the chemist-models than to the anonymous host/narrator. Attitude theorists long have emphasized the importance of a message's source in the process of attitude development and change. The models were ex- perts in their field and had faced dilemmas that could be related first hand. The host, on the other hand, was one step removed from reality. He could only describe the situation; he could not present and discuss dilemmas from a personal standpoint.

Results show that the host/narrator format, which has traditionally been effective with cognitive materials, may not be the best choice when the objectives involve affective learning. Dramatization offers ad- vantages in that it can simulate reality, thus giving meaning and concreteness to an abstract concept such as values. The authority/model format also presents a per- sonification of the value issue.

While both the objective and subjective data show that dramatization can be an effective method for presenting affective instruction, problems with one of the dramatization segments call for some comment. Successful dramatizations are dif- ficult to produce. They must be believable, a criterion that requires good acting, a good script, and a realistic set. Students must be able to identify with the situations and characters in order to internalize the value issue, consider its personal relevance and importance, and make an affective response. And above all, the main point must be clear. The cognitive representation of the value issue is the minimal condition for precipitating affective thought. If the program is confusing, affective learning is minimized as students struggle to determine the key issues. The dramatization may be true-to-life and personally relevant, but if students do not recognize the main points, they lack an adequate cogni-

tive structure to generate affective response.

Finally, it should be kept in mind that these results were obtained from college students seeing very short, single-concept segments. Whether similar results would be obtained from longer programs is un- known. It is possible that 30 minutes of role model on camera would lead to boredom, while dramatization might sustain interest.

This research confirmed the importance of considering possible interactions between learner characteristics and subject matter in designing effective instruction. Results revealed a significant interaction between course and program topic for both teacher and studen~t analyses. The instructional effects of programs on the two topics were differentiated, a result that is a func- tion of program topic and its relevance to the interests and background of the separate audiences. A discussion of career selection is more appropriate for beginning freshmen, and research review is of more interest to second-year students who have had more exposure to university research programs.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated that dramatizations and televised role models com- municating personal situations of behavioral choice can be effective formats for presenting affective instruction. An authority/model was more effective than either an on-camera or a voice-over narrator; in one case, a dramatization presenting characters facing ethical dilemmas was also superior. However, the presence of significant interactions signals a need for caution in generalizing. Knowing the di- versity of learners and learning tasks, one cannot assume that a particular production technique will be effective with all students in all instructional contexts. Consequently, there will probably never be a definitive set of production principles, verified by research, that can guide instructional producers and designers in developing television instruction. Yet this study shows clearly that production techniques do make a difference. No one technique will work every time, but some techniques will be

38 ECTJ SPRING 1980

superior for achieving specific instructional objectives among specific learners. Presen- ta t ion m e t h o d s can affect l ea rn ing and make a difference in how well the instruction is received. Television producers and designers mus t be alert to the characteristics of the learner and the nature of the learning task in determining how television can teach best.

REFERENCES

Anderson, C. M. In search of a visual rhetoric for instructional television. AV Communication Review, 1972, 20, 43-63.

Barrington, H. The instructional effectiveness of television presentation techniques. Ormskirk, England: Edge Hill College Centre for Instruc- tional Communications, 1972. (ERIC Docu- ment Reproduction Service No. ED 097 916)

Brown, R. D., Cavert, E., Craig, J., & Shod- grass, S. J. Evaluation of a variety of television lesson formats for potential adult learners in an open learning system. Educational Technol- ogy, 1974, 8, 55-59.

Chu, G., & Schramm, W. Learning from television: What the research says (Rev. ed.). Washington, D.C.: National Association of Educational Broadcasters, 1974.

Cobin, M. T., & Mclntyre, C. J. The development and application of a new method to test the rela- tive effectiveness of specific visual production techniques for instructional television (U.S. Of- fice of Education Project 448). Urbana: Univer- sity of Illinois, 1961.

Dwyer, F. M. When visuals are not the message. Educational Broadcasting Review, 1968, 2, 38-43.

Gagn6, R. M. The conditions of learning (3rd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1977.

Hummel, T. J., & Sligo, J. R. Empirical comparison of univariate and multivariate analysis of variance procedures. Psychological Bulletin, 1971, 76, 49-57.

Kazem, A. K. M. An experimental study of the contribution of certain instructional films to the understanding of the elements of the scientific method by tenth-grade high school biology students (Doctoral dissertation, Uni- versity of Michigan, 1960). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1961, 21, 3019. (Uni- versity Microfilm No. 60-6892)

Krathwohl, D., Bloom, B., & Masia, B. Taxonomy of educational objectives handbook II, the affective domain. New York: McKay, 1964.

Mielke, K.W. Media-message interactions in TV. Viewpoints (Indiana School of Education) 1970, 46, 15-32.

Mielke, K. W., & Swinehart, J. Evaluation of the "'Feeling Good" television series. New York: Children's Television Workshop, 1976.

Reid, J. C., & MacLennan, D. W. Research in instructional television and film. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1967.

Rhetts, J. E. Task, learner, and treatment variables in instructional design. Journal of Educa- tional Psychology, 1974, 66, 339-347.

Rock, R., Dural, J. S., & Murray, J. Training by television: A study in learning and retention. Technical Report 476-02-3. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce, 1951.

Salomon, G., & Clark, R. E. Reexamining the methodology of research on media and technology in education. Review of Educa- tional Research, 1977, 47, 99-120.

Schramm, W. The researcher and producer in ETV. Public Telecommunications Review, 1977, 5, 11-21.

Documents

Task, learner, and presentation interactions in television production