Advertisement

AV communication review

, Volume 13, Issue 1, pp 28–37 | Cite as

Comparative learning and retention of conventional and instructional TV methods

  • Kenneth D. Hopkins
  • D. Welty Lefever
Articles
  • 22 Downloads

Summary

Each of the 20 elementary schools in the Anaheim City School District were randomly assigned to one of the three method groups. The present studies included the entire group of fourth and fifth grade pupils who received instruction either conventionally or with one of the two ITV methods. The two studies compared pupils’ achievement and retention by method group, intelligence, and sex. Groups receiving the televised social studies instruction performed significantly better on the end-of-term examinations than did the control groups. On the one and two-year delayed posttests, contrary to expectation, all groups had significantly higher means than on the immediate posttests. The basic explanation for the phenomenon was thought to be maturation since many items appear to have tapped reasoning ability as well as content knowledge. This interpretation was supported by the fact that greater gain was noted on the two-year delayed posttest than on the one-year detention measure. The hypothesis was further strengthened by the analysis by item type, the factual items showing the least increase over the time interval. No differential change or gain existed for method groups for the oneyear study. In the two-year study the control group showed greater gain, but its mean remained below that of the TV group.

Keywords

Social Study Method Group Retention Test Item Type Instructional Television 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Allen, William H.Television for California Schools. Sacramento: California State Department of Education, 1959.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Allen, William H. “Audio-Visual Communication.”Encyclopedia of Education Research. (Edited by C. W. Harris.) New York: Macmillan Co., 1960. pp. 115–37.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Benschoter, R. D., and Charles, D. C. “Retention of Classroom and Television Learning.”Journal of Applied Psychology 41: 253–56; 1957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kanner, J. H., and others.Television in Army Training. Evaluation of“Intensive” Television for Teaching Basic Electricity. New York: Army Pictorial Center, 1958.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kramer, C. Y.“Extension of Multiple Range Tests to Group Means with Unequal Numbers of Replication.”Biometrics 12: 307–310; 1956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schramm, Wilbur, editor.The Impact of Educational Television. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1960.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schramm, Wilbur.“Learning from Instructional Television.”Review of Educational Research 32:156–67; April 1962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Shanks, Robert E.“Closed-Circuit TV in Anaheim City Elementary School District.”School Board Journal 148: 34–38; February 1964.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shanks, Robert E.“The Anaheim Approach to Closed-Circuit Television.”A Guide to Instructional Television. (Edited by Robert W. M. Diamond.) New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1964. pp. 156–79.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 1965

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kenneth D. Hopkins
    • 1
  • D. Welty Lefever
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Southern CaliforniaUSA

Personalised recommendations