THE EFFECT OF ATTENTION-GAINING DEVICES ON FILM-MEDIATED LEARNING

149 Pages·05.891 MB·English

by  NEU, D. MORGAN

The Pennsylvania State College
The Graduate School
Department of Psychology
THE EFFECT OF ATTENTION-GAINING DEVICES
ON FII/4-MEDIATED LEARNING
A Dissertation
by
D. Morgan Neu
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
June 1950
Approved:
sychology
" Director,
Instructional Film Research Program
Approve
Date
ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study is not the work of a single individual.
The writer is under heavy obligation to many persons, for
which grateful acknowledgment is made.
The research was carried out under a fellowship
established by the Instructional Film Research Program at
The Pennsylvania State College. The Film Program provided
the funds to produce the motion pictures required by the
study and to pay for all other expenses necessary to com­
plete the research.
Dr. C. R. Carpenter, Director of the Instructional
Film Research Program served as Chairman of the author's
thesis advisory committee and guided the research. Dr. L.
P. Guest, Dr. Kendon R. Smith, Dr. Kinsley R. Smith, Dr.
A. W. VanderMeer and Dr. E. B. van Ormer, all members of
the thesis advisory committee, reviewed the film script as
well as the final manuscript and made many helpful sug­
gestions .
Dr. Kendon Smith and Mr. Leslie Greenhill as well
as the Instructional Film Program's research staff served
as judges at various times in the selection of attention-
gaining devices. Mr. Greenhill also gave assistance in
writing the scripts, producing the films, and constructing
the test questions.
348CS3
ill
Dr. Philip Ash sot up the entire statistical pro­
cedures required by the research. He also worked constantly
with the writer in construction of test items and in con­
ducting the research at the Great Lakes Naval Training Sta­
tion , Great Lakes, Illinois and Fort Dix, New Jersey. Mr.
Edward Abramson, Mr. Edward McCoy, and Mr. Dean Northrop,
as well as Dr. Ash and Mr. Greenhill, assisted in admini­
stration at the military installations.
The motion pictures were produced by The Pennsyl­
vania State College Motion Picture and Recording Studio and
directed by Mr. Henry Miller. He was assisted by Mr. D. P.
Duvall, Cameraman and Mr. P. H. Seltzlnger, Sound Engineer.
Mr. Robert Cole served as Actor and Mr. Joseph Shaffron
served as Narrator.
Members of the Engineering Extension staff under
the direction of Mr. K. L. Holderman served as technical
advisors on the film subject material.
The testing of the experimental films was made
possible through the aid of the staff and men of the Great
Lakes Naval Training Station and Fort Dlx. Lt. (j.g.) J. M.
Bauer, Scheduling Officer, provided facilities and personally
supervised the scheduling of the Naval companies. Lt. (j.g.)
J. C. Kollsek, Officer in charge of Machine Tabulating Unit,
provided test scores and personnel information on IBM cards
for the Naval subjects. Major T. E. Hickman, of the G-3 sec­
tion at Fort Dlx was responsible for providing test
iv
facilities, test scores and scheduling companies.
The clerical staff of the Instructional Film Re­
search Program aided In statistical calculation and typing.
Mrs. Gloria Kahn prepared the outline drawings used In the
test items.
V
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Page
I. INTRODUCTION .................................. 1
Statement of Problem .......................... 1
Historical and Theoretical Background ........ 2
Attention Theory .............................. 5
Stimulus Conditions ........................... 15
Response Influences 19
Combination of Stimulus and Response Conditions 21
Effectiveness of Attention .................... 22
Training and Control of Attention .......... 24
II. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN AND PROCEDURES............ 28
The Experimental Hypotheses .................... 28
The Film Versions ............................. 50
Tests ...................................... 54
The Test Population ........................... 57
Experimental Procedures ....................... 41
III. RESULTS ....................................... 48
Plan of Analysis .............................. 48
General Findings .............................. 50
Comparison of the Combined Versions (experi­
mental and basic) Group and the Control
(no film) Group .............................. 52
Comparison of the Combined Experimental
Versions Group and the Basic Film Group...... 52
Comparison of the Four Experimental
Version Groups ............................... 54
Analysis of the Film Test Items ............... 56
Effect of Time of Day 60
Results of the Device Recognition Test ....... 62
IV. DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ... 76
Discussion of Results ......................... 76
Conclusions ...................... 80
Recommendations ............................... 81
V. SUMMARY ....................................... 85
86
BIBLIOGRAPHY
vi
Pago
APPENDIX ............................................ 90
Regression Equation ........................... 90
Master Script - An Introduction to
Measuring Instruments .......................... 101
Film Information Test
Device Recognition Test
vil
LIST 07 TABLES
Table Page
I . Kuder-Rlchardson Reliability Coefficients
for the Film Test ........................... 36
II. Means and Standard Deviations for Age ....... 38
III. Means and Standard Deviations for Matching
Tests, by Treatments ........................ 40
IV. Film and TeBt Schedule for Navy Population ... 42
V. Film and Test Schedule for Army Population ... 44
VI. Rav and Adjusted Means and Standard Devia­
tions for Film Test Scores, by Treatment
for the Army and Navy Populations .......... 51
VII. Differences Among Adjusted Inforsmtlon
Test Mean Scores ...................... 5?
VIII. Analysis of Information Test Items:
Comparison of Responses Between Film
Groups and Control Group, Between Ex­
perimental Groups and Basic Group, and
Among Experimental Groups ................... 58
IX. Adjusted Information Test Mean Scores for
Time of Day for Each Treatment ............. 61
X. Correlations Between Device Recognition
Tests and Film Test: C^ Test-Devices in
the Version, C2 Test-Devices not in the
Version ..................................... 65
XI. Percentage of Subjects In Each Film Group
Reporting Devices Seen or Heard ............ 65
XII. Analysis of Variance of Matching Test
Scores: Navy Population and Army
Population .................................. 91
XIII. Analysis of Covariance of Scores on In­
formation Test: Navy Population and Army
Population .................................. 93
XIV. Description of Attention-Gaining Devices .... 95
I . INTRODUCTION
Statement of the Problem
The purpose of this study Is to determine whether
a variety of attention-gaining devices deliberately intro­
duced into a sound motion picture will facilitate learning
of the subject matter. Our major hypothesis is that the
degree of learning from a film can be increased by the use
of emphasis techniques.
That learning is possible from films has been well
demonstrated. Almost every study that has been done on
motion pictures indicates that there is a considerable de­
gree of learning from films. The most recent examples can
be taken from studies completed by the Instructional Film
Research Program. The studies by Ash (2), Jaspen (20),
Roshal (36), and Zucherman (47) to name a few, show that
films make a significant contribution to learning. A re­
view of the literature by Dale, Dunn, Hoban and Schneider
(8) presents many earlier studies that uphold the same or
similar conclusions.
Since it can be shown that individuals do learn
from motion pictures, the question arises as to whether we
can Increase the amount of learning in a filmic situation
by additional means. In this case, we are Interested in
adding devices that will supposedly increase the indivi­
dual's attention to the sound screen, affording him a
2
greater opportunity to learn from the film. That increased
attention can increase learning is supported by the conclu­
sions of a study by Philip (52) who says, "To the extent that
an individual Is able to give attention is he able to bring
more or less into play his powers of acquiring knowledge."
(p. vii). A review of the literature on motion pictures
indicates that no study has been done on attention per se.
In order to approach the problem there are several
questions that must be answered. What is attention? What
devices, factors, or situations are adaptable to sound mo­
tion pictures that will be true attention emphasizers? What
would be the optimal number of attention devices necessary
in a film to produce best results? Should the attention de­
vices be merely extraneous or play a part in the presenta­
tion of the subject matter? Would the attention devices be
better if they were presented pictorially or auditorially or
both? Answers or decisions had to be made about all of
these questions before further progress on the study could
be made.
Historical and Theoretical Background
With the advent of psychophysics, experiments on
certain aspects of attention such as range, span, reaction
time, fluctuation, distraction, became abundant because they
lent themselves well to psychophysical methods. These
studies developed Into an attempt to find a biological and
physlochemlcal correlation (Taylor, 41) with "degrees of
3
consciousness" or "clearness of content." Later experimenters
like Johnson (21) trying to rid themselves of mentallstlc
terminology thought of these studies as an attempt to deter­
mine the degree of sensorimotor adjustment of the organism
with respect to a particular stimulus (Dallenbach, 9). Be­
sides the older type of research using psychophysical methods,
experimenters such as Brandt (4), MacGamble (26), and Stevens
(38) conducted studies which involved attention responses
that are locallzable in a segment of the organism, although
this does not mean that only the part mentioned is Involved
in the act.
The most definite of these acts and therefore the
most easily described are the eye movements vhlch are per­
formed in preparation for reading and for the inspection of
objects (Karslake, 23)(Brandt, 5). Preliminary to seeing
words and phrases of printed or written material are the more
or less regular jumps of the eyes. These are definitely
preparatory responses, for the perceptual reaction connected
with such movements are the convergent and focusing of the
eyes which may likewise be considered as parts of the atten­
tion reactions. Much the same sort of behavior occurs in
other stimuli situations. To hear better the head or ear
may be turned toward the sound. The person inhales or sniffs
to smell more efficiently; or he may use his fingers to
tactually explore the surface of some material or object.