|
Citation |
- Permanent Link:
- http://ufdc.ufl.edu/AA00055804/00001
Material Information
- Title:
- The development of an instrument for evaluating films for use in high school and community college teaching
- Creator:
- Barnes, Richard Verle, 1949-
- Publisher:
- University of Florida
- Publication Date:
- 1977
- Language:
- English
- Physical Description:
- vi, 98 leaves : ; 28 cm.
Subjects
- Subjects / Keywords:
- Art teachers ( jstor )
College instruction ( jstor ) Curriculum evaluation ( jstor ) Educational evaluation ( jstor ) Film criticism ( jstor ) Film studies ( jstor ) Instructional material evaluation ( jstor ) Movies ( jstor ) Teacher evaluation ( jstor ) Teachers ( jstor ) Curriculum and Instruction thesis Ed. D Dissertations, Academic -- Curriculum and Instruction -- UF Motion pictures -- Evaluation ( lcsh ) Motion pictures in education ( lcsh ) City of Jacksonville ( local )
Notes
- Thesis:
- Thesis (Ed. D.)--University of Florida.
- Bibliography:
- Bibliography: leaves 58-62.
- General Note:
- Typescript.
- General Note:
- Vita.
- Statement of Responsibility:
- by Richard Verle Barnes.
Record Information
- Source Institution:
- University of Florida
- Holding Location:
- University of Florida
- Rights Management:
- The University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries respect the intellectual property rights of others and do not claim any copyright interest in this item. This item may be protected by copyright but is made available here under a claim of fair use (17 U.S.C. §107) for non-profit research and educational purposes. Users of this work have responsibility for determining copyright status prior to reusing, publishing or reproducing this item for purposes other than what is allowed by fair use or other copyright exemptions. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder. The Smathers Libraries would like to learn more about this item and invite individuals or organizations to contact the RDS coordinator (ufdissertations@uflib.ufl.edu) with any additional information they can provide.
- Resource Identifier:
- 026386057 ( ALEPH )
04168681 ( OCLC )
Aggregation Information
- UFIR:
- Institutional Repository at the University of Florida (IR@UF)
- UFETD:
- University of Florida Theses & Dissertations
- IUF:
- University of Florida
|
Downloads |
This item has the following downloads:
|
Full Text |
THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN INSTRUMENT FOR EVALUATING FILMS FOR USE IN HIGH SCHOOL AND COMMUNITY COLLEGE TEACHING
By
RICHARD VERLE BARNES
A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 1977
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Grateful acknowledgment is made to the following faculty members who aided in the making of this dissertation:
Dr. Glen Hass, who served as my committee chairman and whose innovative concepts of curriculum and instruction served as the structural basis for the study.
Dr. Al Smith, who contributed much to the dissertation and my overall graduate program in the area of post-secondary education, and who helped focus on problems throughout the dissertation process.
Dr. William C. Childers, who contributed invaluable ideas in the area of film.
Dr. Gordon Lawrence, who served as a committee member when I needed him the most and who helped to bring order to committee discussions.
Dr. Linda Crocker, who made the final copy of this dissertation a reality by helping me to bring order to my final data analysis.
Loving thanks is made to my wife, Shirley, and my son, Adam, who not only put up with me throughout the writing of the dissertation but who gave me reason to complete it.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ii
ABSTRACT v
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION 1
Statement of Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Need for the Study 1
Background Information . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Limitations of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Definitions 12
Assumptions . 13
Problem Statement 13
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF SELECTED LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Literature on Film Education and Film Study ... . . . . . .15
Literature on Film Evaluation . . . . . . . . . 21
Related Literature on Film in Education . . . . . . . 27
Literature on Instrument Development . . . . . . . .29
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY 31
Design . .31
Procedures Followed in the Study .. . . . . . . . . 31
CHAPTER IV
PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA . . . . . . . . . . 38
iii
Results of the Pilot Study 38
Results of the Field Test 39
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION 51
Summary 51
Discussion . .53
Conclusions 55
Recommendations .... . . . .. 56
Suggestions for Further Study 57
BIBLIOGRAPHY 58
APPENDICES
A. DIRECTIONS FOR EVALUATING FILMS WITH THE PRELIMINARY
INSTRUMENT 64
B. DIRECTIONS FOR EVALUATING THE FILM EVALUATION INSTRUMENT . .66
C. PRELIMINARY INSTRUMENT FOR EVALUATING FILMS FOR HIGH
SCHOOL AND COMMUNITY COLLEGE TEACHING, NUMBER ONE . . . 68
D. INSTRUCTIONS FOR INSTRUMENT EVALUATORS . . . . . . 78
E. PRELIMINARY INSTRUMENT FOR EVALUATING FILMS FOR HIGH
SCHOOL AND COMMUNITY COLLEGE TEACHING, NUMBER TWO . . . 81
F. SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES WITH PARTICIPATING EVALUATORS, BY STATE .89 G. FACTORS AND FACTOR LOADINGS FOR ALL ITEMS IN THE FIELD TEST . 90 H. ASSIGNMENT OF ITEMS TO CURRICULUM CATEGORIES . . . . . 93
I. FINAL INSTRUMENT FOR EVALUATING FILMS FOR HIGH SCHOOL
AND COMMUNITY COLLEGE TEACHING 94
J. SAMPLE LETTER TO A FILM INSTRUCTOR . . . . . . . 97
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 98
iv
Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Education
THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN INSTRUMENT FOR EVALUATING FILMS FOR USE IN HIGH SCHOOL AND COMMUNITY COLLEGE TEACHING
By
Richard Verle Barnes
August 1977
Chairman: C. Glen Hass
Major Department: Curriculum and Instruction
The purpose of this study was the development of a comprehensive film evaluation instrument which might be used by high school and community college teachers in selecting entertainment films for classroom use. Guiding concepts in developing the study were the four bases of curriculum and instruction as identified by Hass, Bondi and Wiles: Social Forces; Human Development; Learning; and Knowledge.
A preliminary instrument of 70 items and six open-ended questions was designed and offered to evaluators in a pilot study. The instrument was structured around Hass et al.'s four bases of curriculum and instruction and additional categories of Art, Entertainment and General.
Subjects in the pilot study were 10 high school and community college
teachers who used the instrument to evaluate a film and who evaluated the importance of each item on a scale of one to five. From the pilot study, ten items and one open-ended question were eliminated from the instrument.
v
Evaluators in the field test were 168 high school and community college teachers and other educators from Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, and Tennessee. Teachers who served comprised eight different academic areas identified by the investigator prior to the execution of the study. A total of 308 potential evaluators were invited to participate, with 192 evaluators returning responses. From the 192 responses obtained, 24 were eliminated from the final data analysis, primarily because of incomplete instrument responses. Thus a total of 168 evaluators' responses, obtained by mail and personal contact, were used in the validation study. Interviews were conducted with selected respondents, specifically soliciting constructive comments about the instrument and instrument items.
Internal reliability was determined by a two-way analysis of variance
as recommended by Kerlinger, and was estimated to be .984. A factor analysis of the data was also run. The initial factor method was the principal axis solution, which identified 12 major factors. The factor analysis was run again, rotating 12 factors to varimax criterion, with nine factors retained in the final instrument revision. Labels were assigned to each factor. Overall, the factor analysis, along with the analysis of mean ratings by the evaluators, resulted in the elimination of 25 items, leaving a final instrument of 35 items. Instrument structure remained essentially the same, with the categories of Art, Entertainment, and General being consolidated into new categories of Aesthetics and Communication.
The major conclusion in this study is that the instrument might be
useful to teachers in evaluating films, but further refinement and development needs to be done in order to assure that the instrument is useable for purposes other than experimental purposes.
vi
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Statement of Purpose
The purpose of this study was the development of a comprehensive film
evaluation instrument which might be used by high school and community college teachers in selecting entertainment films for classroom use and which follows sound principles of curriculum and instruction according to present standards.
Need for the Study
The recognition of film as a rredium of communication and education,
as well as a contemporary art form, has resulted in a continuing growth in the use of films for educational purposes. In addition to educational or instructional films, the entertainment film has in recent years been recognized as a legitimate adjunct to teaching in many different subject areas. Put while evaluation of instructional films has been given considerable attention over the years, there has been little offered in the way of specific evaluation criteria for use of entertainment films in education. There is presently a need in education for helpful and definitive evaluations of film in a manner which might be applied to the curriculum.
The following six major reasons contribute to the need for the study:
1. The power of the film medium and its meaningfulness in today's
society.
2. The growth of film use and film study in education, particularly
post-secondary education.
1
2
3. The need for educators to know the potential uses of film.
4. The need for better evaluations of entertainment films.
5. The apparent gap between film evaluation efforts of the 1930's
and 1940's and the lack of quality evaluation materials today.
6. The growth of the community college as an institution of postsecondary education, and the continuing presence of the secondary
school as an important component of American education.
An important consideration in dealing with any educational situation is the idea of a school as a synergetic organization as proposed by Lewis and Miel (1972). As much as any other institution in American society, the community college must function as an integral component of the society, which allows for continual growth and constant change. This is one of its basic reasons for existence. Similarly, the high school must be able to change with and for the society which it serves. Film also is, partly because of the society and partly because of its own influence on the society, a changing, growing, collective organism.
The idea of curriculum as the experiences of students by Hass, Bondi and Wiles (1974) also carries particular significance in the area of film. By its very natue, film is a medium which requires its audience to experience something in viewing. Also, in considering the four bases of curriculum and instruction .as presented by Hass, Bondi and Wiles, film seems to fit into the instructional program in many ways. As one of the mass media, film is definitely an important social force. It is also in its various forms an important medium for imparting many kinds of knowledge, and for stimulating learning and enhancing human development in various ways.
In mentioning the bombardment of today's youth with motion pictures and television, Keisman (1972) poses the question, "How do we in education deal
3
with human beings who possess this great raw material when we were motivated differently" (p. 86)? The proposed instrument might help teachers to deal with the generation of students who have been motivated to watch television and motion pictures rather than to read books, hopefully in a manner which will help to integrate viewing and reading.
The uses and purposes of films in education are important considerations, particularly as films are used by teachers. Dale, Dunn, Hoban, and Schneider (1938) said that "One of the major defects in much of the use which teachers make of films is the failure to evaluate properly either the film used or the use made of it" (p. 112). According to much of the literature, this problem does not seem to have improved much in the three decades since.
Dale and his colleagues also emphasized that motion pictures available
for school use are of exceedingly unequal value, and that teachers should not only select films well but should report their basis of selection to aid others in using films. Of using poor films, Brunstetter (1935) has said, "A poor film may be just a waste of time or even do positive harm" (p. 364). It is the belief of the writer that there are already too many influences or components of the curriculum and environment doing positive harm to the educational program, and the use of poor films should not proliferate the situation further.
In reference to using film as a teaching tool, Guss, as reported by the
Educational Film Library Association (1963), emphasized that films must be evaluated before use. Guss also emphasized that even before a film is selected for evaluation, the user must determine what purpose he wishes the film to fulfill, and that he must view the materials as a means of obtaining a definite end in establishing criteria for evaluation.
Guss also assigned significance to the audience viewing the film. The user of the film, Guss said, must know exactly what effects it will have on
4
the audience.
Similarly, May and Howell (1958) have said, "The same film may be used for many different teaching purposes, at different grade levels, with pupils of varying abilities. It may have many values. To evaluate it means to 'bring out' or determine its values" (p. 266). While May and Howell were primarily concerned with teaching films, the same can be said about "entertainment" films as well. The instructor must know the possible uses of the films which he plans to show to his classes in order for them to be effective teaching materials. The need for an evaluative instrument to assist in judging the worth of films was the basis for this study.
One of the primary problems of film evaluation in particular and film study in general has traditionally been the need for specific evaluative criteria for judging films. Dale et al. expressed dismay at the lack of truly helpful, scientific methods of evaluation for the voluminous film material as early as 1938. "The administrator who searches for a scientific approach to his problems of selection and the teacher who looks for authoritative advice to supplement her rule of thumb criteria must stumble through the oak forest of educational literature to find the few sprigs of evaluative mistletoe" (p. 248).
Of this need, May and Howell (1958) have said, "There is an obvious need for a method of appraising the values of a film (both positive and negative) that has some of the objectivity and reliability of the experimental method and at the same time the breadth, richness, and practicality of the preview method" (p. 267). The purpose of the present study was to develop an instrument which combines these attributes and which helps the instructor formulate reliable judgements.
Finally, since the community college is a special type of institution
5
with special problems and considerations, a film evaluation instrument is needed which can be used by community college teachers as well as high school teachers.
Background Information
The use of films in education followed naturally from the development of films as an art form and as a medium of communication and entertainment. Selby (1964) has identified the beginnings of teaching film in the classroom as the early 1930's. The teaching of film, he says, entered the schools at that time "primarily as a response of fear of the adverse effects of motion pictures on youth" (p. 5098). According to Selby, film programs grew through the 1930's but disappeared during World War II as other interests acquired priority in the schools. After the war, there seems to have been a gradual increase in the use of films in education until the early 1960's, when film as an academic discipline began to blossom.
Dale (1933), in his How to Appreciate Motion Pictures, was one of the
exponents of the use of films in general, and film evaluation, in particular. Four years later, with Ramseyer, he wrote Teaching With Motion Pictures: A Handbook of Administrative Practice. While both books seem to provide what might be accepted today, they were quite innovative at the time.
From the realization that motion pictures might be useful in education came the need for evaluation of individual films. Most film evaluation procedures used in education have traditionally dealt with the "suitability" of the motion picture in question. Considerations dealing with the "viewability" of the film by children represented prime factors in film evaluation. The fear of adverse effects mentioned by Selby seemed best to manifest itself in film evaluation.
6
One of the main problems of film evaluation instruments of the past
was that many of the instruments were too short or incomplete. The information sought from these instruments was scarce and did not provide adequate evaluative criteria.
An attempt was made to alleviate this problem after World War II, when many educators again turned their attention to motion pictures and the possibilities offered by them. The Yale Motion Picture Research Project was initiated in 1946 and lasted eight years. Sponsored by the Motion Picture Association of America and Teaching Film Custodians, the project included the experimental studies of problems of production and utilization. The primary implication of the project as reported by May and Lumsdaine (1958) was that the gains in knowledge from some instructional films without supplementary instruction justified their use in education. Since the Yale project was completed, there appear to have been no attempts at improving films and film use by evaluation in a comprehensive manner.
Film in education has generally existed as a part of other subjects, particularly English. As Selby (1964) says, "The film was seldom treated as an art form equal to print literature, and was always a peripheral concern of the English teacher" (p. 5098). Even today, in secondary schools as well as many two-year and four-year colleges, film is largely a part of the domain of the English department, or in some cases, the communications or journalism departments. One of the goals of this study was to help teachers in other areas use films more effectively.
Guiding concepts in designing this study were the four bases of curriculum and instruction as identified by Hass, Bondi and Wiles (1974). The four bases are Social Forces, Human Development, Learning, and Knowledge. If these
7
four concepts can be considered bases of curriculum planning in general, they should serve well as bases in the planning of film usage.
Hass et al. (1974) say that all four curriculum bases are needed "for
providing balance in a curriculum" (p. xix). The use of the four bases, they say, provides a "multi-dimensional approach" (Hass et al., 1974, p. xix) to planning curriculum and instruction.
Hass et al. have identified the following four general goals in curriculum planning: education for citizenship, self-realization, vocation, and critical thinking. "Often the same program of learning," they say, "can contribute to several of these goals which should be kept in mind at all levels of education" (Hass et al., 1974, p. xix).
The terms and definitions offered by Hass, Bondi and Wiles to identify the four curriculum bases were accepted for use in this study. In addition, the concepts of entertainment and art were minor considerations in designing the original instrument, as well as a "general" category for evaluation of the films.
Social Forces
Social forces might include all those forces which affect the individual within the context of the total society. Particularly, Hass et al. (1974) say, "One of the major areas of consideration in all curriculum planning must be social forces as reflected in (1) social goals, (2) cultural uniformity and diversity, (3) social pressures, and (4) social change" (p. xviii).
Essential considerations in any educational situation are social forces which combine to comprise present societies as well as developing future societies. H[lass et al. (1974) say: "To understand schools and school systems, one must relate them to the surrounding cultural, economic, historical,
8
philosophical, and political circumstances. Since education is always an expression of a civilization and of a political and economic system, schools must harmonize with the lives and ideas of men in a particular time and place" (p. 3). As a purveyor (on a mass, highly effective level) of the circumstances mentioned above, film acquires a special significance within the society and potentially within education.
"As a major element in curriculum planning and teaching," Hass et al.
(1974) say, "present social forces and future trends must be regularly reconsidered" (p. 3). The key word in this statement is "reconsidered." Without regular reconsideration of all elements of an educational system, there would be unnecessary deterioration in quality.
As a powerful mass communications medium, film is especially important when considering Hass et al.'s (1974) statement that "social forces are always changing" (p. 5). Generally speaking, the film industry must change with the social forces in order to maintain its existence. In addition to being a communication medium, film itself is a social force.
Human Developm2ent
Individual human development is a continuing process as long as an individual exists. It involves different kinds of development which combine to form what may be called total human development. Hlass et al. say that curriculum planning should be guided by five aspects of development: (1) Biological basis, (2) Physical maturation, (3) Intellectual development and achievement, (4) Emotional growth and development, (5) Cultural pressures. Each of these five aspects might be communicated in a meaningful manner in motion pictures, and the motion pictures themselves might help to further the understanding of all the aspects as well as total human development.
9
Hass et al. (1974) say, "Human beings are qualitatively different at the different age levels for which we must provide in curriculum planning and in the planning of teaching" (p. xviii). This is especially important in the community college, since the community college provides learning opportunities for students at different ages and different stages of development but generally requires the same level of performance of all students. Knowledge
Hass et al. (1974) say, "Today knowledge must be considered one of the bases of the curriculum. A major question is, What knowledge is of the most worth? . How shall knowledge be organized in the curriculum" (p. xix)? These questions must be asked by every teacher in planning his courses, and must be considered by the potential user of a film for educational purposes.
Hass et al. (1974) also state, "Knowledge about the nature of knowledge enables the curriculum planner to provide for learning that is useful, or problem-oriented, or that will be most likely to be transferred by the learner from one situation to another" (p. xix). The emphasis on knowledge which is useful and problem-oriented is an important consideration in using any kind of film, including entertainment films. The transferral of knowledge by the learner, however, should be one of the primary goals of any film user.
Learning
Hass et al. (1974) emphasize the complexity of learning and individual differences in learning in their support of learning as one of the bases of curriculum and instruction (pp. 111-161). In this study, learning was considered as it is presented on film, or as individual learning is stimulated
by the film itself.
10
Entertainment
A statement by Maltin (1972) helped to justify the inclusion of entertainment as one of the instrument's criteria of evaluation: . In order to appreciate the films of the past, one must always keep in mind that the directors who made them always had one idea foremost in their minds--to entertain. One can make a relevant statement while entertaining" (p. 150). Entertainment is an area which is often ignored in American education at times when it could be of immense value as an adjunct to serious education.
Art
Since film itself is an art form, it was accepted that art should
serve as a minor part of the evaluative criteria of the proposed instrument. While "art" is sometimes a nebulous, undefinable concept, an assumption was made that the community college and high school teachers using the instrument would be able to assign their own meanings to the term in evaluating films.
Limitations of the Study
Since this study was intended for specific purposes, there were definite limitations to the study itself as well as the results which developed from it. Following are limitations which need particular emphasis:
1. It must be emphasized that this study dealt with motion picture evaluation, as opposed to motion picture appreciation or criticism. The writer adopted the stance taken by Rand and Lewis (1937) in regards to motion picture appreciation or criticism: "We neither condemnin pictures wholesale nor advertise them. We try to evaluate them. We are engaged in setting up standards for judging them" (p. v).
2. The evaluation instrument developed in this study dealt almost entirely with film content as opposed to art or form.
3. The nature and design of the study did not deal with the film evaluators in terms of their preparation or qualification in film. Rather, they participated as teachers or instructional planners, experts in education who were to apply their expertise to film evaluation for possible use in teaching.
4. There was an understanding in designing this study that complete objectivity in film evaluation would be unattainable. While the evaluation form was aimed at perfection in evaluation for the individual teacher, it was accepted that a degree of subjectivity would influence the teacher's evaluation of individual films.
5. One important aspect in film evaluation for use in education is the level of application. It was recognized that this study was an attempt to develop an instrument for specific application on limited levels of instruction--from the first year of high school through the second year of college. While it may eventually be modified for use on other levels of instruction, the instrument will be limited to some of the subjects offered in community colleges and high schools at these levels of instruction.
6. Since the primary purpose of the proposed instrument was for teacher evaluation of films for potential use, this study was not concerned with the assessment of factual information included in the films viewed.
7. It was also to be emphasized that the proposed instrument will be considered only. as an adjunct to teaching, a tool which the teacher may use to aid him in the selection of materials. Neither the instrument nor the films evaluated by the instrument are intended to replace the teacher or his abilities in any manner.
8. The use of both mail and personal requests in acquiring evaluators might bias results or the return rate of responses.
12
Definitions
For purposes of clarity, the following definitions of terms are offered as they were used in this study:
Film Evaluation--The assignment of values to selected qualities of individual films for specific purposes or uses.
Film Appreciation--The viewing and study of films designed for enjoyment and awareness of films rather than actual measurement or criticism of qualities of films.
Film Study--Academic study of motion pictures including education of students about historical, artistic, and technical aspects of film as well as film production. Designed to increase motion picture understanding and appreciation as well as developing critical abilities of students.
Instructional or Educational Film--A motion picture produced with the specific purpose of imparting knowledge, information, or ideas to viewers.
Entertainment Film--A motion picture which is usually produced for commercial purposes and generally distributed on a wide scale, with its primary intention to be entertainment.
Rating Scale--A measuring instrument which requires a rater or observer to assign the rated object to categories or criteria which have numerals assigned to them.
Curriculum--"All the experiences that individual learners have in a program of education, which is planned in terms of a framework of theory and research or past and present practice used in the program planning" (Hass et al., 1974, p. xvii).
Instruction--"The activities dealing directly with the teaching of pupils and with improving the quality of teaching" (Hass et al., 1974, p. viii).
13
Evaluators--The participants in this study; high school and community college teachers in various subject areas, and other educators who deal with the instructional program in some way.
The terms "film," "motion picture," and "moving picture" were used interchangeably throughout the study.
Assumptions
The following assumptions were made concerning this study:
1. Films other than instructional films can be used as valuable
educational tools.
2. Films other than instructional films can be evaluated for use
in various subject areas.
3. The auxiliary values or purposes of a film may be used well
in certain educational settings, such as an entertainment film
as an aid to teaching social studies.
Problem Statement
The major problem investigated in this study was: Could a valid,
reliable instrument be developed which could be used by teachers to evaluate entertainment films for educational purposes?
Consistent with the purpose of the present study, the following activities were proposed:
1. The investigator would attempt to develop an instrument for evaluation of non-instructional films which might help teachers in
various subject areas to determine the value of these films for
their teaching.
14
2. A preliminary version of the instrument would be pilot tested,
evaluated and refined.
3. The reliability and validity of the final form of the instrument
would be investigated.
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF SELECTED LITERATURE
The literature reviewed in this study is reported in four sections dealing with the following subjects:
1. Film Education and Film Study as a Subject for Study
2. The Evaluation of Films in Education
3. Related Literature on Film in Education
4. Literature on Instrument Development
Literature on Film Education and Film Study
The study of film as a legitimate academic subject has grown tremendously in recent years. While not the primaryemphasis of this study, film study as an academic endeavor is closely enough related to the present study to merit a brief review of literature. Film evaluation can be a part of film study, and serious film study can help the individual teacher or student in becoming a better film evaluator.
Most studies or reports dealing with film study are simple compilation
efforts or.collections of facts. Examples such as the American Film Institute Guide to College Film Study and the Arizona English Bulletin Poll do not deal with problems or issues involved in film study itself.
Other reports and articles provide some general predictions for the future of film study, deal with the importance of film or make recommendations for film study courses. This section primarily reviews literature dealing
15
16
with the following aspects of film study:
1. The importance of film in the modern world and the future of
film study.
2. The social importance of film.
3. Recommended film study curricula.
4. Opposition to film study.
The importance of film in the modern world has been emphasized by some
writers. For example, Stevens (1965), president of the American Film Institute, has said, "Time magazine was more than clever when it suggested that a modern man must be 'cinemate' as well as literate. For future generations, this will require hundreds of hours plus guidance and opportunity" (p. 70). If Time is right, there will be at least an equal need for cinema literacy as there is for verbal literacy.
Lanier made a much more dramatic statement in 1968 about the importance of film education. Lanier said that "the primary art form used by art educators in 1978 will be film where the primary purpose of much of this study and production will be to deal visually, dramatically, and artistically with social problems" (1968, p. 28). It is obvious that Lanier's enthusiasm for film study's position in education has not been realized to such a degree in 1977, but the growth of film study in education remains nonetheless dramatic.
Arrowsmith (1969) made a more conservative and also more general statement when he said that film study "will challenge and eventually claim the place and prestige accorded to literature and the arts in the traditional curriculum" (p. 75).
Sutton (1972) emphasized the increase of film study in higher education in future years:
17
Rarely in the secondary school, but with increasing frequency
at the junior college and college level, film will be taught fully and completely as an art form. Supported by extensive
but carefully chosen screenings, the body of material that
is film will be examined by students. They will grapple
with film history, film aesthetics, and film criticism.
These students will join their teachers in creating a
critical body of writing and research that will support the development of film as a discipline of study in its
own right. (p. 182)
The social importance of film has been one of the bases of some writers for the inclusion of film in the curriculum. According to Peters (1961), Hills has written, "Since it is socially important to reach all the discriminating cinema-goers, film appreciation must cease to be a wholly voluntary activity; it has to find its way into the school time-table" (p. 84). An important point here is that most movie-goers are relatively undiscriminating in what they see. They have a limited means of evaluation or discrimination because they have never been educated as to what is good or bad, what should or should not be done.
In 1960, a Congress of the International Catholic Film Office in
Vienna, according to Peters (1961), recommended that film education of the young is important in order to help their comprehension of filmic language and to take advantage of the educational, aesthetic and entertainment value of film (and the related medium of television), as well as to help students "react healthily" (p. 87) against the harmful effects of the sight and sound media.
According to Peters (1961), Aibauer has written of the importance of film as a means of social study: "As an 'image of life' the film offers many examples for the study of social problems" (p. 85).
18
Peters (1961) has written about the possibilities of film as general social education as well as the existence of film and television as a "second world" for students. Peters says:
When we come to general social education, this is treated at the average school as being even less a separate "subject" than is aesthetic education. Social problems and
social behaviour are topics which are (or may be) treated
in lessons about geography, history, religion and "civics."
Certainly, in the teaching of these subjects, it would
often be worthwhile to point to practical subjects-without which all theoretical considerations must remain
sterile--taken from films. The advantage of such examples lies in the fact that they belong to a "real"
situation and that they are intensely experienced by
the students themselves. . What the young pupil has not experienced in his own environment and consequently has not become acquainted with in reality,
he may experience--with many variations--in the "second
world" of the screen. (pp. 90-91)
Peters also asserts that film and television are themselves important aspects of social life and belong to the subject matter to be treated as in "social studies." Similarly, Bukalski (1972) says that today there is an interplay between society and the art of film.
In recent years, there have been numerous suggestions concerning film programs and a number of practical, recommended curricula and specific film courses. For example, Richard Maynard (1971), in his book The Celluloid Curriculum, has recommended specific classroom units of study as presenting discussions on general topics such as "The Black Man in the Movies" and'"The Western: A Mirror of Our Age?" Some specific units offered by Maynard deal with using movies about the depression as historical sources, and includes such specifically named units as: "Marriage as an Institution--A Unit on Sex Education for Math, Science and English" classes and "Crime and Punishment: The Criminal, the Police and the System--A Unit on Film." Maynard's units for study on film seem to be geared
19
toward secondary students only, but could be easily adapted for use on lower levels of education as well as college instruction.
Keisman (1972) has written of what he calls "an educator's dream-a student-oriented thematic approach" (p. 87) to film study which resulted from a class discussion group. The following problem areas were selected by the class for study: (a) nonconformity, (b) the judgement of society,
(c) the role of the black man in a white society, (d) adolescent/adult relationships, (e) coping with failure, and (f) religious faith in a changing world. The "educator's dream," Keisman indicates, is perfectly suited to film study because of the wealth of material available in films which deal with the specific problem areas.
Ellis, Fischer, Knight, Gray, and Stoney, in Stewart's Film Study in Higher Education (1966), described film courses which were being offered in institutions of higher education at the time. Respectively, the authors described the content of courses dealing with the following: Modes of Film Communication; Film Criticism; An Approach to Film History; Film Aesthetics; Breaking the Word Barrier. The latter course was a general introductory film course, while the other courses dealt with topics in a more specialized manner or with film in terms of one aspect of film study.
Sheridan, Owen, Macrorie, and Marcus (1965) suggested the film classic Citizen Kane as a complete unit of study on motion pictures in the English program. They also presented The Grapes of Wrath as a good example of studying both versions of a motion picture which has been adapted from a novel. Both of these works, the authors indicate, offer students the chance to study a subject on film in literary terms as well as filmic
20
terms.
Poteet (1968) has described a film study program for high school
students which follows the suggestions of the spiral curriculum of Jerome Bruner. In Poteet's program, more advanced concepts of film were concentrated on each year.
Opposition to Film Study
There has also been much opposition to film study. As recently as 1969, Gollin summarized a somewhat popular view against film: "The view persists that movies belong in movie houses and late night television, films in art film houses, cinema in cinema societies, and none of these things in respectable college curricula" (p. 424).
Kael (1966), the well known film critic for the New Yorker magazine, expressed an objection to film study in a description of her efforts at designing a film course:
This was what I had gotten interested in movies to get away
from. . I remembered how my thumbnails got worn down from
scraping the paint off my pencils as the teacher droned on
about great literature. I remembered music appreciation with
the record being played over and over, the needle arm going
back and forth, and I remembered the slide machine in art history and the deadly rhythm of the instructor's tapper.
And I knew that I could not present a course of study. . .
It goes against the grain of everything I feel about movies,
and against the grain of just about everything I believe
about how we learn in the arts. (pp. 127-128)
Stoney (1966) expressed similar doubts about film study in higher
education in what might be an appropriate summary statement for those who oppose film study in general: "About teaching film in colleges I have this one great fear: that we will finally make it so acceptably academic that it would become as dull and dead as almost every other subject in the liberal arts curriculum" (p. 82).
21
Literature on Film Evaluation
The literature on film evaluation in education generally presents
evaluation instruments or provides guidelines for motion picture education, appreciation, or appraisal. Film evaluation has been a concern of educators for many years, and much of the relevant literature on the subject was presented in the 1930's and 1940's. A possible reason for the heavy emphasis on film evaluation during that period of time was the fact that films were feared more and there was more of a need felt for censorship. Recent literature on film evaluation is scarce, and comprehensive film evaluation is almost nonexistent in education today.
In an attempt to help students get more out of movies by understanding the various aspects, Dale (1933) provided a handbook of motion picture criticism titled How to Appreciate Motion Pictures. Dealing with such aspects of film as the story, acting, photography, settings, sound and music, direction, and the purpose of the motion pictures, the book is a good example of a guide to motion picture appreciation and not evaluation. Eight standards are offered by Dale about the motion picture story, but specific guidelines for film evaluation are not provided.
During the same decade, according to Rand and Lewis (1937), Barnes offered eight general standards for a motion picture which might be used in developing evaluations of motion pictures. Barnes' standards include principles dealing with the structure and thematic elements of the motion picture, the story itself, mechanics and technical elements, and sensational and emotional elements of the motion picture.
More generally, Altschul, according to the Educational Film Library
Association (1963), stated that film should be evaluated on the basis of how
22
it can work for an individual, not on the basis of whether it is a "good or bad" (p. 22) film. He emphasized that the evaluation by itself should be an evaluation for a particular purpose, not for its own sake.
Along the same lines, Stevenson, as reported by the Educational Film
Library Association (1963), said that the same thing should be asked of a film that is asked of a book when selecting films. Such things as the objective, the validity of the content and the usefulness to the potential audience should be considered, she said.
Buchanan (1951) emphasized the patient development of a critical approach towards film within the next generation in order to enlighten humanity. He emphasized the understanding of production values in attaining this purpose.
Weisenborn, as summarized by the Educational Film Library Association (1963), offered a very general statement about the effects of a film on the audience. A good film, Weisenborn said, should make an audience "move" (p. 22), and he indicated that evaluators should take this into consideration.
Lemler, according to the Educational Film Library Association (1963),
dealt specifically with film and the curriculum by offering the following as criteria for film evaluation: "Does the film meet the needs of the curriculum? In meeting those needs, does it take advantage of the unique qualities found in the film medium? How do children learn? Can they learn from the particular film in question" (p. 29)? Lemler emphasized that, in evaluation, one must not sit in judgement.
Specific methods of evaluation have been offered by various writers and groups of educators, in attempts to satisfy certain needs or provide general evaluation criteria for films. May and Lumsdaine (1958) and May and Howell (1958), respectively, present two major types of evaluation of instructional
23
films: Objective tests and "Road testing." Evaluation by objective testing, May (1958, p. 245) maintains, is indispensible in experimental work, while evaluation by "road testing" is especially useful to persons who have the responsibility of selecting films for a school and assisting teachers in getting the maximum uses from them.
Objective tests, May and Lumsdaine say, are generally believed to constitute the most efficient means of measuring factual information and understanding. Road testing was a method developed by Teaching Film Custodians and the Yale Motion Picture Research Project in an attempt to evaluate and develop study guides for excerpts from entertainment feature films. The criteria of selections from films were the potential values which teachers of all subjects and subject areas saw in them. A series of events are completed by various teachers in what is a fairly comprehensive evaluation procedure. The present study might be said to be an attempt to produce a much simpler, scaled-down version of road testing, one which can be performed by the individual teacher for his own specific purposes.
One method used at the Workshop on Film Evaluation and Criticism of the Educational Film Library Association, as reported in Film Evaluation: Why and How (1963), was a panel evaluation. In this method, the panel discussed films seen, focusing on the following question: Could this film be used for a number of .purposes? Multipurpose use was determined to be an important consideration to a purchaser of films working with a limited budget. In addition to considering the potential of films in different classes, the panel considered the technical quality of the films.
A variety of film evaluation instruments has been presented for use in education over the years. For example, Frutchey, as reported by Rand and
24
Lewis (1937), offered a general rating scale in which students rank the movies they have seen by means of a 0 (worst I have ever seen) to 9 (best I have ever seen) rating. This method is intended primarily as a means of determining the movies which students "like" the most. Frutchey also offered a brief scale which could be used to compare motion pictures.
Mullen (1934) offered a score sheet by which to evaluate individual
motion pictures. This score sheet offered more actual "evaluation" criteria than the general and paired rating scales presented by Frutchey. Under a heading of "My Score of a Moving Picture" (Mullen, 1934, p. 121), this score sheet provided the rater with the opportunity to evaluate a motion picture by assigning a score to specific criteria, such as Entertainment Value, Basic Theme and Social Value.
The Bureau of Educational Research of Ohio State University, as reported by Rand and Lewis (1937), presented a rating scale similar to Mullen's score sheet titled the "Application of Standards" (p. 125). As the name might indicate, this scale dealt with standards (social) or attitudes and historical and social facts as well as personal considerations such as enjoyment and evaluation of moral content of the films.
At about the same time, Rand and Lewis (1937) report, the Film Survey
Board offered a brief evaluation instrument dealing primarily with social and political considerations which are contained within a film. Called the "Ballot of Associated Film Audiences" (Rand and Lewis, 1937, p. 129), the instrument offered general conclusions dealing with entertainment and educational values as well as recommendations to friends and children under 16.
Bell, Cain, Lamoreaux, and others (1941) report an unusual method of film evaluation which was used by the Santa Barbara, California, schools in the
25
1930's and 1940's. The schools constructed the "Progressive Education Association's Scale of Beliefs" (Bell et al., 1941, p. 161) so that a shift in the direction of a higher score by students could be interpreted as a shift toward a more liberal attitude in regard to the following subjects: democracy; economic individualism; labor and unemployment; nationalism; race; and militarism.
A group of teachers led by Peterson and reported by Meierhenry (1952)
developed two types of evaluation devices for the United Nations phase of the Nebraska Film Program in 1948. In addition to constructing a factual test, the group developed an opinion-type belief scale which dealt with social issues concerning the United Nations. The scales were designed to measure the effectiveness of specific motion pictures which were to be used in the program. Criteria were established for the construction of test items, and the tests were administered experimentally to arrive at their final versions.
Devereux (1935) presented a rather comprehensive instrument for evaluation
of educational motion pictures, titled "A Checklist for Evaluating Educational Talking Pictures" (p. 204). The checklist includes a numerical rating of items which fall under the following headings: (1) Objectives of the Picture, (2) Content of the Picture, (3) Development of Content, (4) Technical Audio-Visual Elements, (5) Contribution to Other Curriculum Materials and (6) Overview of General Effectiveness.
One producer of educational films in the 1930's, according to Brunstetter (1935), used an appraisal form which not only evaluated the finished product but also guided the various steps of production of films. Included in the form were selections in which to appraise the film's contributions to other curriculum materials (the same and related fields) and to its artistic as well as educational values.
Stinson, as reported by Amelio (1970), developed a "Film Evaluation
Sheet" (p. 154) which deals with films in a very simple and general manner. Stinson's instrument includes comments or ratings on the following: General Reaction; Creativeness; Clarity of Purpose; The Film's Suiting to the Medium; Technical Qualities; and Emotional Reaction.
Peters (1961) says that the "critical viewing" (p. 56) could be used in describing the process of comparing a person's own life and values with those which are offered for examination in the films he sees. Peters also offers a "Scheme for the Critical Evaluation of Film Content" (1961, p. 56) which is the most comprehensive evaluative device for entertainment or non-instructional films. The "scheme" offered by Peters is a list of questions which fall under the following general categories: environment, situation, and course of action; the characters (appearance, character, social status, attitudes toward the outer world, and motivations); tendency of the film and ideas of the producer as well as of the main characters. The device offered by Peters deals with some of the questions proposed in the present study but does not cover the four bases of the curriculum and does not offer specific evaluative criteria for rating the films.
None of the literature reviewed offered an instrument or other evaluative device complete enough to eliminate the need for the present study. While a number of suggestions of the writers and specific and general parts of evaluative instruments within the literature served as models or guidelines for the sample instrument offered by the investigator at the beginning of this study, the final instrument offered for analysis has been developed from the combination of factors comprising the study itself.
27
Related Literature on Film in Education
The literature on film in education which neither falls under the
headings of film study nor film evaluation is vast, and is usually fairly general in nature. Hence a brief and highly selective review is presented in this section.
The use of films in connection with other subjects is an important consideration in education in general and in relation to this study in particular. For example, Peters (1961) says that film can be a valuable aid in teaching subjects other than film, particularly the teaching of language, general aesthetic education and general social education. Verbal language and exercises in teaching verb tenses is especially relevant in connection with film teaching, Peters says. He also says that film aesthetics seems to coincide directly with general aesthetics education because of the artistic nature of film itself. And finally, the critical assimilation of films is important in general social education because the film presents a "real" situation on screen, a "reflection" of social life, and because film itself is an important aspect of social life.
According to Peters (1961), Haase has made a more specific statement about the value of film in connection with literature and language. Language skill and literary taste, he says, can be favorably influenced by education in film language and film art.
Gollin (1969) says that some films can be studied as dramatic literature, particularly in films adapted from stage plays, partly because the two genres are enough related to avoid flagrant violations of the genius of each. Gollin also says that films may be used as an adjunct to literature courses by way of film adaptations of novels, as well as social history. In showing films for
28
history purposes, the studio's researches into such things as clothes and furniture of certain periods often provide easy references for students and faculty.
Stern (1968) has said that "all of the forms of writing--exposition, literary criticism, narration, dialogue, description, even poetry--can be found in parallels in film and provide stimulation for a composition program" (p. 646). The same questions, Stern says, can be asked of films which are asked of books.
Bukalski (1972) has written against a literary approach to film study. The literary approach, Bukalski says, "totally neglects the experiential aspects of film" (1972, p. 5), by stopping, reviewing, and searching for meanings in a temporal art which "must make its real impact in a limited period of time" (1972, p. 5). The film must be first viewed in its entirety as a film before the critical process is allowed to begin.
Sheridan, Owen, Macrorie, and Marcus (1965) share Bukalski's view on
the appraisal of films, in this case literary adaptations. Sheridan and his colleagues offered The Grapes of Wrath as a unit of film study for English classes. In a film adaptation of a novel such as this, the authors contend, there must not only be thematic similarities, but the film content must be assessed within the form of the film itself.
In examining films pedagogically, Peters (1961) says, "The discussion of films is valuable from a pedagogical point of view, particularly because judgements and opinions which have been formed in that sphere of the mind where the processes of appreciation and assimilation happen automatically, are now subjected to rational examination" (p. 64).
Bukalski (1972) emphasizes the tremendous interest today in the interplay
29
between society and the art of film. Most scientific studies of film, he says, are simply too narrow in scope to offer any extensive insights into the nature of film.
Peters (1961) makes a similar statement about films and other aspects of the society. "As a rule," Peters says, "the characteristics of the art of film may be best appreciated by comparing it with other forms of art" (p. 90).
The use of films, according to one study, goes hand in hand with other positive teacher behaviors. May and Nerden (1958), in a study of factors related to the use of motion pictures, found that the teacher's conception of the job, interest in pupils and seeing them grow and the desire to keep up with the times professionally are related to the extent to which films will be used.
Literature on Instrument Development
A large number of studies have dealt with the development of measurement instruments for various purposes. The studies reviewed in this section have been selected primarily because of the methods involved in instrument development.
Williams (1948) developed a questionnaire intended to evaluate policies and standards for student health services. After the construction of a preliminary instrument, authorities evaluated the instrument be use of a rating scale in order to aid Williams in arriving at the final instrument.
Ulibarri (1960) developed a questionnaire designed to measure the extent to which teachers were aware of sociocultural factors that influence the education of minority group children. The emphasis was on Anglo, Spanish-American and Indian children. The questionnaire considered the psychological needs of
30
children, cultural orientations as they affected children's classroom behavior, social conditions among the three groups and educational problems pertinent to the three groups.
Landers (1945) constructed a questionnaire to aid in evaluating public school programs for handicapped children. A preliminary instrument was developed and submitted to thirty authorities in the field for suggestions for improvement. The final instrument was developed from these suggestions and presented in a score card form.
Anderson (1960) developed an instrument which could be used by school administrators in measuring community attitudes and prejudices. Anderson's final instrument was a questionnaire consisting of ten distinct areas of attitudes and prejudice. An emphasis of Anderson was the curricular validity of the instrument.
The same year, Kirk (1960) developed a rating scale for evaluating college and university health service programs. Kirk developed a preliminary instrument composed of 291 standards and presented it to a jury of 60 health service directors. From the ratings, the final instrument was constructed and presented for use. Kirk's instrument is closer to the instrument proposed in the present study, in method and procedures followed, than any other instrument development study found in the literature.
The most recent study dealing with instrument development is the development by Brown (1973) of a sickle cell anemia awareness instrument. Although not involved in any type of evaluation, Brown's study was similar in method and procedure to the studies by Landers and Anderson.
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
Design
A formative evaluation design was used in this study. Basically, the major phases of this design included: initial development of the instrument; pilot-testing; instrument revision; field-testing; and analysis of the field-test results.
Procedures Followed in the Study
Steps Involved in the Study
The following steps were followed in the study:
1. A pilot test of the preliminary instrument was conducted with ten
high school and community college teachers. From this pilot test the instrument was revised for the field-testing portion of the study.
2. Evaluators who participated in the study were chosen from selected high school and community college teaching fields.
3. Each teacher evaluated an entertainment film which he had seen fairly recently. The film evaluation by each teacher was used merely to familiarize him with the instrument, and the results of the film evaluations had no bearing on the results of the study itself. In addition to evaluating each item, the evaluators were asked to recommend a minimum total score (on a scale of 100, for example) for the questions closely related to the teachers' own subject area(s) for the film to be useful.
31
32
4. After using the preliminary instrument, the instructors evaluated each item on the instrument according to the scale provided. The scale used to evaluate instrument items consisted of numerical ratings from one to five, with one representing an "unacceptable" or "highly inappropriate" item for inclusion in the instrument and five representing an "essential" item. Individual written comments were encouraged. The instructors were asked to recommend a minimum average score for the inclusion of each question in the final instrument.
5. After evaluation of the film and evaluation of the preliminary instrument, interviews were conducted with selected evaluators by the investigator. The interviews specifically solicited constructive comments about the overall instrument and individual items on the instrument.
6. Data were collected and analyzed, using a principal axis factor analysis.
7. From the analysis of the ratings and individual comments, the instrument was revised.
8. The final instrument was offered for use in evaluating films for high school and community college teaching.
Instrumentation
The instruments. Two instruments were used in this study. In addition to the proposed film evaluation instrument itself, a secondary instrument was used to evaluate and revise each item on the proposed instrument. Both instruments used were numerical rating scales.
Justification for the use of a rating scale consists of several reasons which Guilford, according to Kerlinger (1964), regards as valuable: "They require less time than other methods; they are generally interesting and easy for observers to use; they have a very wide range of application; they can be
33
used with a large number of characteristics" (pp. 517-518). Numerical rating scales are used because, as Guilford suggests, they yield numbers which can be directly used in statistical analysis. They are also considered to be the easiest to construct and use.
One of the primary goals of this study was the development of an
instrument which is easy to use. Hence the evaluation instrument and the secondary instrument were kept as simple as possible in order to keep confusion at a minimum and clarity and direction of purpose at a maximum. Considering this, the following criteria for the construction of items were followed:
1. Each item was constructed in order to elicit an evaluation
of the film in terms of potential use in teaching and overall
educational value.
2. Each item could be classified into one of the six specific
categories of the instrument or justified by fitting it
into the general category.
3. Items were intended to be specific enough to help the instructor
determine the film's usefulness in his courses but general enough
to cover different subject areas without asking numerous questions.
The major evaluation instrument in this study is composed of a numerical rating scale of one to five. A rating was assigned to each question on the proposed film evaluation instrument as to the question's quality and worth in film evaluation according to the categories presented. A simple verbal description accompanies each numerical value. For example, a rating of one represents an evaluation of an item as "unacceptable" or "highly inappropriate" while a rating of five represents an evaluation of an item as "essential" to
34
the proposed film evaluation instrument. This evaluation instrument is presented as Appendix B. It is for this instrument that data were gathered and reported.
The original film evaluation instrument consists of questions divided
into the following seven categories: Social Forces; Human Development; Knowledge; Learning; Entertainment; Art; General. Following is a sample item from each of the seven categories:
1. Social Forces--item l--"To what extent does the film deal with a
social problem?"
2. Human Development--item 25--"To what extent does the film deal
with human beings at certain stages of life?"
3. Learning--item 46--"To what extent does the film deal with the
outcomes of learning?"
4. Knowledge--item 47--"To what extent does the film present information which might contribute to your course?"
5. Entertainment--item 59--"To what extent is the film entertaining?"
6. Art--item 55--"To what extent did the film provide an aesthetic
experience for you?"
7. General--item 60--"To what extent does the film deal with a problem
or convey a situation in a realistic manner?"
The evaluators were asked to assign a value from one to five to each question on the instrument. A detailed verbal description of each of the assigned numerical values used accompanied the numerical scale. For example, a rating of one for an item was accompanied by the following verbal description: "Not at all. Does not deal with this consideration. Contains no information or reference concerning this consideration." A rating of five was accompanied
35
by the following verbal description: "To a great extent. This consideration is a major part of the story. The main character or characters are involved in this consideration." The preliminary instrument in the pilot study is presented as Appendix C.
Selection of evaluators. Ten community college and high school teachers, administrators, and support personnel who deal with the instructional program served as evaluators in the pilot study of the instrument. Names of potential evaluators were acquired at random by using college catalogs and school lists of personnel. Educators from Tennessee, Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina served as evaluators in the field test. Both personal contact and mail requests were made in the selection of evaluators, and all evaluators followed a standardized instruction sheet provided by the investigator, which can be found as Appendix D. Personal requests were made by individual contact or with small groups of teachers. Mail requests were made using a standard letter which was personalized for each person according to subject area, school, and similar considerations. All evaluators participated in the study voluntarily. A total of 308 requests were made by the investigator. 172 personal requests were made, with 124, or 72%, returning the instrument. Of 136 mail requests, 68, or 50%, were returned for inclusion in the study.
Of the original number of 192 evaluators, 168 were used in the final
data analysis of the study. The remaining 24 responses were eliminated for various practical reasons, the major reasons being incomplete responses or apparent misunderstanding of the intent of the study. Most of the responses eliminated came from participants solicited by mail. Following are the numbers of evaluators from each subject area: Social Sciences I--21; Social Sciences II--13; Physical Sciences--16; Biological Sciences--16; Humanities--41; Communication--38; Education--16; Business-Economics--7.
36
Justification for instructor evaluation of the instrument is one of
practical intent. Since instructors themselves will be using the instrument in their own teaching, it seems reasonable that they can best evaluate the instrument itself in attempting to perfect it for classroom use.
Training of evaluators. Since the proposed instrument did not require
any training for its use by instructors, the instructors serving as evaluators received only the detailed instruction sheet and either a detailed personal letter or personal contact by the investigator in which a thorough explanation of the study was made. Included in the letter or conversation was a brief explanation of the four bases of curriculum and instruction as outlined by Hass, Bondi and Wiles (1974).
Instrument validity. Several procedures were used to build in content validity of the film evaluation instrument:
In order to help validate the content of the instrument, mean ratings of each item by the evaluators were computed before the preliminary instrument was revised. Items were eliminated on the basis of low ratings aswell as apparent duplication upon further examination of all items. During content validation a standardized instruction sheet was given to all evaluators in order to assure understanding of their roles in the study. The responses of evaluators who did not complete the instrument properly were eliminated from the final results of the study.
Construct validity of the instrument was investigated using factor analysis. A factor analysis of the results of the study was performed in order to obtain a simpler structure for instrument items. The factor analysis provided an objective mathematical basis for instrument revision and was used along with the mean ratings of the evaluators.
The two primary means of instrument validation, the factor analysis and
37
the use of Hass et al.'s (1974) four bases of curriculum and instruction, provided different bases for developing a film evaluation instrument. The factor analysis showed what dimensions experts used to evaluate item quality on the instrument, while the categories suggested by Hlass et al. provided a structure for items that may be useful to teachers in evaluating films.
Reliability. Internal consistency of the instrument was determined by a two-way analysis of variance as recommended by Kerlinger (1964).
CHAPTER IV
PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA
Results of the Pilot Study
A pilot study was conducted in order to refine the preliminary instrument for the final study. Ten high school and community college teachers evaluated the preliminary film evaluation instrument. One teacher's responses were eliminated because he indicated after completion of the evaluation that he did not perform the task seriously. Of the nine teachers whose evaluations comprised the pilot study results, eight were community college teachers and one was a high school teacher.
The pilot study and further consideration by the investigator resulted in elimination of ten items from the 70-item preliminary instrument, as well as one of the six open-ended questions. In eliminating items, the investigator used the mean figure which respondents recommended as a minimum average score for inclusion of items in the final instrument, as well as re-examination of each item as it related to the overall instrument and the intentions of the study. The mean recommended minimum average score was 2.89.
Items number 1E, 29, 44, 59 and 69 were eliminated due to a low score, while the five remaining items were eliminated for other reasons.
Items number 18 and 19 scored exactly the mean--2.89--but were generally regarded by the respondents and the investigator as unnecessary questions in arriving at a comprehensive film evaluation instrument.
38
39
Item number 12 received a mean score of 3.00 but was considered too general to be included in the final instrument. Question number 17, which also received a mean score of 3.00, was considered adequate in covering the question of education in the evaluation of films.
Item number 36 received a mean score of 3.00 but was eliminated because it was too specific for the film evaluation instrument of this study.
Item number 38, which received a high score of 3.89, was eliminated because its content was redundant with item number 25.
A total of 25 items received mean ratings of 4.00 or better, with items number 41 and 48 receiving the highest score, 4.78. Five items received a score of 4.56, while two items received a score of 4.44. Three items scored
4.33.
In the open-ended section of the instrument, four of the nine respondents indicated that they would use a modified version of the preliminary instrument, and four said they would not use it. One respondent offered a "don't know" answer to the question.
Number three of the open-ended section was eliminated because a total weighted score was considered to be useless in dealing with film evaluation in individual subject areas. Mean ratings for the 60 items in the pilot study which were included in the second version of the instrument are reported in Table 1, and mean ratings for the 10 items eliminated after the pilot study and responses to the open-ended questions are reported in Table 2 and Table 3, respectively.
Results of the Field Test
Item Ratings
Data obtained in the field test consisted of 168 evaluators' ratings
40
Table 1
Mean Ratings of Instrument Items
In the Pilot Study and
Means and Standard Deviations in the Final Study
Item Mean, Mean, Std Dev, Item Mean, Mean, Std Dev, Item Mean, Mean, Std Dev, Pi St Fi St Fi St Pi St Fi St Fi St Pi St Fi St Fi St
1. 4.11 4.10 .998 21. 3.78 3.26 1.153 41. 4.33 4.31 1.038
2. 3.89 3.39 1.204 22. 3.56 3.17 1.136 42. 4.33 3.88 1.077
3. 3.78 3.29 1.225 23. 3.44 3.32 1.067 43. 3.89 3.60 1.143
4. 4.11 3.63 1.157 24. 3.22 2.79 1.209 44. 3.78 3.17 1.197
5. 4.56 3.95 1.157 25. 3.33 3.44 1.265 45. 3.56 3.05 1.162
6. 4.11 3.82 1.076 26. 3.11 3.18 1.134 46. 4.22 3.38 1.141
7. 4.22 3.76 1.090 27. 3.33 3.26 1.159 47. 4.44 4.43 .907
8. 3.67 3.65 1.174 28. 3.44 3.19 1.163 48. 4.00 3.79 1.066
9. 3.78 3.25 1.217 29. 3.33 3.24 1.154 49. 4.44 4.17 .954
10. 3.22 3.29 1.220 30. 4.33 3.85 1.151 50. 3.22 3.27 1.284
11. 3.11 3.01 1.140 31. 3.33 3.01 1.221 51. 4.22 4.03 1.041
12. 4.11 3.80 .982 32. 3.89 3.71 1.074 52. 3.67 3.54 1.340
13. 3.11 3.09 1.152 33. 4.11 3.42 1.206 53. 3.44 2.90 1.330
14. 3.56 3.29 1.079 34. 4.78 4.20 1.130 54. 3.22 2.83 1.219
15. 3.00 3.14 1.230 35. 3.22 3.27 1.278 55. 4.56 3.64 1.175
16. 3.22 3.14 1.126 36. 4.11 3.66 1.071 56. 4.56 3.60 1.277
17. 4.00 3.69 1.168 37. 3.78 3.70 1.288 57. 4.33 3.82 1.205
18. 3.56 3.07 1.012 38. 3.11 3.13 1.221 58. 4.56 4.18 1.011
19. 3.56 3.29 1.010 39. 3.33 3.11 1.124 59. 4.56 3.99 1.069
20. 3.89 3.36 1.074 40. 4.78 4.24 1.010 60. 4.22 4.17 1.114
41
Table 2
Mean Ratings of Eliminated Items In the Pilot Study
Item Mean Item Mean Item Mean 12. 3.00 29. 2.78 59. 2.67 16. 2.56 36. 3.00 69. 2.56 18. 2.89 38. 3.89 19. 2.89 44. 2.44
Table 3
Evaluator Responses to Open-Ended Items In the Pilot Study
Item Results Item Results
1. Yes--5 4. 2.89
No--4 5. Yes--4
(1) 4 No--4
(2) 0 Don't Know--l
2. 69.37
3. Social Forces 15.00%
Human Development 16.11% Learning 14.44% Knowl edge 14.44% Entertainment 15.56% Art 16.11% General 8.22%
42
of the 60 items remaining after the pilot study revision, plus five openended items. As can be seen in Table 1, items scoring high in the pilot study generally received high ratings in the field test.
Nine items received mean ratings of 4.00 or better, with 28 items receiving ratings of 3.50 or higher. Item 47 received the highest score with a mean rating of 4.43. Only three items received mean ratings of under 3.00, while 45 items, or 75% of the total, received scores equal to or greater than the recommended minimum mean of instructors of 3.18. The mean recommended score on the items related to the instructors' subject areas for the film to be useful was 76.90.
An interesting statistic is that 111, or 66% of the teachers involved in the data analysis, indicated that they would use a modified version of the preliminary instrument. Fifty-three teachers, or 31%, said they would not use it, while four created their own answer with a "don't know" response.
Instrument Reliability
The internal consistency of the instrument was determined by a twoway analysis of variance as recommended by Kerlinger (1964), in which betweenitems variance, between-individuals variance and residual or error variance is measured in estimating total instrument reliability. The analysis of variance table is presented in Table 4. Following is the formula as presented by Kerlinger for reliability estimation:
V
r =1- e
tt V
ind
where
43
r = reliability coefficient,
tt
V = error or residual variance, which corresponds to
e
ms residual in the analysis of variance table, V = variance between individuals, which corresponds
ind
to the ms for individuals in the analysis of variance table. (pp. 434-436)
Using this formula, a reliability coefficient of .984 was obtained for the film evaluation instrument.
Table 4
Analysis of Variance Data
Source df ss ms
Items 59 8727 148 Individuals 167 8703 52.1 Residual 9853 3287 .334
Factor Analysis
In an attempt to obtain a simpler, more basic structure to the film evaluation instrument, a factor analysis of the data was performed. The initial factor method, run on an SAS (Statistical Analysis System) program, was the principal axis solution. Twelve major factors were identified in the initial factor pattern. The amount of total variance explained by the principal axis solution was 83%.
The factor analysis was run again, rotating 12 factors to varimax criterion, which places emphasis on simplification of the factors in the
44
factor matrix. The varimax method, according to Williams (1968), attempts to mathematically objectify the criterion of simple structure. The rotation indicated clearer relationships among some variables and factors but did not offer a completely clear solution for instrument revision. As an aid to interpretation, the factors were also graphically plotted with each other.
The per cent of common variance explained by each factor was calculated and aided in determining which factors should be retained in revising the instrument to its final form. Table 5 indicates the per cent of common variance explained by each factor and the number of items loading greater than +.50 on each factor, and Appendix G contains factor loadings for all items in the field test. Table 6 contains the loadings of items on respective factors.
Nine of the 12 factors retained for rotation accounted for enough of the common variance to be considered significant. Factors 7, 11 and 12 accounted for low percentages of the variance, with 2.6%, 3.7% and 3.1%, respectively, and thus were eliminated from serious consideration in the revision of the instrument. Factor 6, which accounted for 4.8% of the common variance, was retained for further consideration during the final instrument revision. The other eight factors accounted for amounts of common variance ranging from 5.2% to 22.9%.
Factor I accounted for 22.9% of the common variance. Because most of the items with significant factor loadings on factor 1 deal with such things, factor 1 has been labeled Social Institutions, Conventions. From an original number of 17 items with factor loadings of +.50 or higher, eight items from factor
1 have been retained for the final instrument. Items 16, 18, 21, 22 and 31 were eliminated because they seemed to be covered by items retained in the instrument. Items 16, 18 and 21, for example, deal with "established institutions," while
45
Table 5
Factor Labels and Common Variance Explained for Each Factor
% Com. Cum. % # Items Loading Factor Factor Label Var. Exp. Var. +.50 or Higher
1 Social Institutions, Cony. 22.9 22.9 17 2 Education, Learning 14.6 37.5 9 3 Significant Information 8.1 45.6 5 4 Aesthetics 7.0 52.6 2 5 Values, Pressures 10.7 63.3 4 6 Communication 4.8 68.1 4 7 -- 2.6 70.7 0 8 Adaptation 5.7 76.4 2 9 Choices 5.2 81.6 1 10 Development 9.4 91.0 3 11 -- 3.7 94.7 0 12 -- 3.1 97.8 0
46
Table 6
Items Loading +.50 or Higher on Respective Factors
Item Item Content Loading Item Item Content Loading
Factor 1 Factor 5
2 estab. institutions .63 3 envtal. prob. .61 9 economics .76 5 morality .62 14 illness or death .58 6 human rights .73 16 mass media .76 12 social, cult. pres. .76 18 government .88 19 law, enforcement .91 Factor 6 20 religion .78 21 politics .75 57 story line .78 22 war or peace .76 58 communication .58 26 children .54 59 entertainment .72 27 young adults .54 60 realism .81 28 middle-aged people .53 29 elderly people .82 Factor 8 31 citizenship .74 32 cooperation .63 24 geography .56 33 love .52 53 adaptation .80
Factor 2 Factor 9
10 the future .53 34 choices .74 15 educational prob. .76 38 gen. process learn. .79 Factor 10 39 ind. learning .89 42 problem solving .57 25 stages of life .79 43 diff. ways learn. .71 35 physical matur. .80 44 origin of ideas .81 37 emotional growth .70 45 group learning .78 46 outcomes of learn. .63
Factor 3
13 scientific probs .66 47 info for your cours..51 49 info transferred .62 50 scientific info .77 52 terms in part. area .77
Factor 4
55 aesth. exp. you .87 56 aesth. exp. stus. .89
47
institutions," while item 2, dealing with established institutions, has been retained.
Factor 2 accounted for 14.6% of the common variance explained and has
been assigned a label of Education or Learning. Of the nine items receiving high factor loadings upon rotation, seven have been retained in the final instrument. Two items, 43 and 45, were considered unnecessary or redundant and were eliminated from the instrument. Item 10, which deals with the future, did not seem to fit into factor 2, but received a high factor loading and has been retained in the final instrument as a legitimate film evaluation item.
Factor 3, which accounted for 8.1% of the common variance explained,
has been labeled Significant Information because the four items in factor 3 retained for the final instrument deal with information which might help students in the instructors' particular courses. Item 47, with a factor loading of +.51, received the highest teacher rating of all 60 items with a mean of
4.43. Items 50 and 52 did not receive exceptional ratings but contained very high loadings on factor 3, and item 49 received a high factor loading as well as a very high mean rating of 4.17. Item 13 was eliminated because of redundancy.
Factor 4, which accounted for 7.0% of the common variance explained, was
easy to interpret and label as Aesthetics. Only two variables had high loadings on factor 4, and both variables dealt with aesthetics. Items 55 and 56, with factor loadings of +.87 and +.89, respectively, and with similar mean ratings,
3.64 for 55 and 3.60 for 56, were both retained in the final instrument.
Factor 5 accounted for a fairly large portion of the common variance with 10.7%. It has been labeled Values, Pressures because the three items retained in the final instrument deal with one of these two related considerations.
48
Factor 6 accounted for only 4.8% of the common variance but was retained because the investigator felt the four items with high factor loadings on factor 6 were important in film evaluation. All four items, 57-60, received high mean ratings by the evaluators, and factor 6 has been assigned the label of Communication.
Factor 8 accounted for 5.7% of the common variance but contained only two items with significant factor loadings. One of the two items, 24, was eliminated from the final instrument upon further examination. Factor 8 was labeled Adaptation on the basis of the remaining item, 53, which dealt with the adaptation of fiction or drama for the screen.
Factor 9, labeled Choices, accounted for 5.2% of the common variance
although it contained only one item with a significant factor loading. Item 34, dealing with making choices and the consequences which come from the choices, contained a very high loading of +.74 on factor 9 and served as the basis for labeling.
Factor 10 accounted for 9.4% of the common variance and was assigned a label of Development. The three items with high loadings on factor 10, items 25, 35 and 37, dealt with human development in some way.
Items 1 and 11, dealing with a social problem and the past, respectively, were retained in the final instrument despite the fact that neither received a loading of +.50 or higher on any factor. Item 1 seems to fit well into the structure of factor 1 and received a loading of +.47 on factor 1. Item 11 does not seem to fit into the structure of any factor with the exception of factor 2, but received an extremely low loading on factor 2. Both items were believed by the investigator to contain important considerations in evaluating films for teaching.
As indicated earlier, the factor analysis helped somewhat in determining
49
what items might be eliminated on the basis of their belonging to clusters or groups of similar items. In that respect, the factor analysis was useful in making the instrument more economical to use as well as strengthening the instrument validity. The labels assigned to the nine factors are arbitrary names and are strictly the choices of the investigator after careful examination of the data.
Using a cut-off point of +.50 as a significant factor loading helped to provide guidelines for the elimination of instrument items, but the factor analysis did not provide explicit, clear-cut points for instrument revision in every instance. This could have been a function of the small sample size of 168 evaluators and the relatively large number of 60 items. It may also be partially attributed to the rotation of 12 factors. Rotation of 10 factors might have yielded a more interpretable solution.
The Final Instrument
The final instrument is a shorter version of the preliminary instrument obtained after the pilot study. Of the 60 items included in the field test, 25 have been eliminated, leaving an instrument of 35 items. While the factor analysis was the primary means of eliminating items, the instructors' ratings of items and the investigator's own analysis contributed to the shape of the final instrument.
The final instrument has retained the original structure derived by the investigator. Hass, Bondi and Wiles' (1974) four bases of curriculum and instruction still comprise the major elements of structure, but the Art, Entertainment and General categories have been changed. Items formerly numbered 55 and 56 now fall under the category called Aesthetics, and the remaining items, formerly 57-60, have been combined under the heading of Communication.
50
The changes were suggested by the factor analysis. The four bases of curriculum and instruction of Hass et al. have been retained because they seem to offer a simpler visual structure, as well as a more logical one, to the average teacher who might use the instrument, and as mentioned earlier, they provide a strong case for content validity of the instrument.
The numbers of items in each of the remaining six instrument categories are: Social Forces--13; Human Development--6; Learning--5; Knowledge--5; Aesthetics--2; Communication--4.
Film score. Since the instrument does not contain right-or-wrong items, a standardized score cannot be obtained. Rather, the instrument's potential use is based on a teacher's own evaluations of film content in a way which might be beneficial to that particular teacher. Thus, the investigator believes the instrument would work best if each teacher planning to use it would familiarize himself well with it and use the instrument primarily as a recording device in noting in what areas films score high or low.
For those teachers wishing to obtain scores according to their own standards, however, items have been somewhat arbitrarily assigned to the eight curriculum categories or subject-related areas from which evaluators were chosen, plus a general category. As can be seen in Appendix H, some items appear in more than one of the categories. Two items, 25 and 28, were assigned to.all categories because of their possible application to all of them. A highest possible score, based on the number of items multiplied by the maximum score o' five, is also reported.
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION
Summary
The purpose of this study was the development of a comprehensive film evaluation instrument which might be used by high school and community college teachers in selecting entertainment films for classroom use. Justification for the study dealt primarily with the recognition of film as a medium of communication and education, and the lack of truly conclusive evaluative materials which assist teachers in judging the worth of films as educational materials.
Guiding concepts in developing the items on this instrument were the four
bases of curriculum and instruction as identified by Hass, Bondi and Wiles (1974): Social Forces; Human Development; Learning; and Knowledge. The reasoning was given that these four concepts might serve well in the planning of film usage, if they can be considered bases of curriculum planning in general.
A review of literature was completed on the following areas: Literature on Film Education and Film Study; Literature on Film Evaluation; Related Literature on Film in Education; and Literature on Instrument Development. Generally, the literature review served to support the need for the study as well as providing ideas and guidelines in planning the preliminary instrument.
Limitations of the study dealt primarily with the purpose and scope of the study itself. Major limitations of the study were as follows:
51
52
The study dealt only with film usage in the first year of high school through the second year of college.
The study dealt with motion picture evaluation and not motion picture appreciation or criticism.
The instrument itself dealt almost entirely with film content as opposed to art or form.
The study was not concerned with the assessment of factual information contained in the films, but was designed to judge film content as it relates to individual teaching.
The results of the study may have been biased by the use of both mail and personal requests in obtaining instrument evaluators.
A preliminary instrument of 70 items and six open-ended questions was designed and offered to evaluators in a pilot study. The instrument was structured around Hass et al.s four bases of curriculum and instruction and additional categories of Art, Entertainment and General.
Subjects in the pilot study were 10 high school and community college
teachers who used the instrument to evaluate a film and who evaluated the importance of each item on a scale of one to five. From the pilot study, ten items and one open-ended question were eliminated from the instrument.
Evaluators in the field test were 168 high school and community college teachers and.other educators from Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, and Tennessee. Teachers who served comprised eight different academic areas identified by the investigator prior to the execution of the study. A total of 308 evaluators were invited to participate, with 192 evaluators returning responses. In addition to a letter or personal contact explaining the study, a detailed instruction sheet was provided for all evaluators. From the 192 responses obtained, 24 were eliminated from the final data analysis, primarily because of
53
incomplete instrument responses or obvious misunderstanding of the intent of the study. Thus a total of 168 evaluators' responses were used in the validation study. Interviews were conducted with selected respondents, specifically soliciting constructive comments about the overall instrument and individual items on the instrument.
Instrument reliability was determined by a two-way analysis of variance as recommended by Kerlinger (1964), and was estimated to be .984.
In order to obtain a more basic structure to the instrument, a factor analysis of the data was run. The initial factor method was the principal axis solution, which identified 12 major factors. The amount of total variance explained by the principal axis solution was 83%. The factor analysis was run again, rotating 12 factors to varimax criterion, with nine factors retained in the final instrument revision. Labels were assigned to the nine factors. Overall, the factor analysis, along with the analysis of mean ratings by the evaluators, resulted in the elimination of 25 items, leaving a final instrument of 35 items. Instrument structure remained essentially the same, with the four bases of curriculum and instruction serving as categories in the instrument. The categories of Art, Entertainment and General were consolidated into new categories of Aesthetics and Communication.
The major conclusion obtained in this study is that the instrument might be useful to.teachers in evaluating films, but further refinement and development needs to be done in order to assure that the instrument is useable for purposes other than experimental purposes.
Discussion
While a lack of interest in film evaluation among educators was noted
54
in conducting this study, the investigator was, overall, very pleased with the response from those educators who were solicited as participants. Particularly pleasing were the positive responses from individuals in various subject areas of education. Some of the most positive responses, for example, came from teachers in subject areas such as biology, mathematics and police science. More helpful suggestions and comments, as well as really close examinations of wording and redundancy, seemed to come from mathematics teachers than teachers from any other subject area.
The following methodological limitations of this study suggest areas for future research:
1. The inter-rater reliability of the instrument has not been
determined.
2. The results of the factor analysis must be regarded as tentative
or exploratory due to the relatively small sample size of 168
subjects and fairly large number of 60 items. Also, rotation of
a different number of factors could have changed the results somewhat.
3. The use of different procedures in obtaining responses from evaluators and the return rates of 50% and 72%, respectively, for mail
and personal responses, may have biased results.
4. The evaluation of different films by the evaluators as practice
in using the instrument might have created a problem in that
evaluators did not all have the same frame of reference in evaluating the instrument itself.
The following general statements can be made concerning this study and film evaluation in general:
1. There seems to be an inverse relationship in the increased use of
55
films in classrooms and the decreased use of critical awareness of
what the films really say or how they affect students. While the
investigator had a lot of help and cooperation from the many teachers
who participated in the study, there is still a widespread lack of
interest in objective evaluation measures for films. While the reasons for such disinterest are probably many and varied, they
collectively help to validate the execution of the present study.
The present evaluation instrument received a number of positive
responses from the research subjects, but some of the subjects
asked to evaluate the instrument were repulsed at the idea of reducing a film to objective evaluation.
2. Meaningful, comprehensive film evaluation, as any other aspect
of education, takes a lot of time and effort by those doing the
evaluation. Haphazard evaluation or analysis of films used in classrooms or out of class as adjuncts to teaching can develop
into a serious problem for students and teachers alike.
3. Even with the degree of objectivity inherent in the design and
use of the present instrument, film evaluation is still a largely
subjective endeavor.
4. Even with the availability of a good, comprehensive film evaluation
instrument, it is assumed that many teachers would not use it.
Conclusions
The following major conclusions have been reached in the present study: 1. An instrument has been developed to aid teachers in various subject
areas in high schools and community colleges in selecting and evaluating entertainment films for use in their teaching. The fact that
56
66% of the teachers involved in the data analysis said they would
use a modified version of the preliminary instrument indicates some
degree of usefulness for such an instrument.
2. The four bases of curriculum and instruction as proposed by Hass
Bondi and Wiles (1974) proved useful as a structural basis for the content of the film evaluation instrument developed in this study,
generally receiving praise from evaluators and offering a strong
basis for the content validity of the instrument.
3. The statistical procedure of factor analysis was useful in helping
to analyze large amounts of data in developing the film evaluation
instrument and in investigating the construct validity of the instrument, but was not completely conclusive in helping to revise the instrument. Expansion of the sample size and further investigation of the topic by factor analysis might statistically validate the instrument more conclusively.
Recommendations
Any further exploration of the subject of film evaluation is beyond the scope and intent of the present study. Hence the following recommendations are made on the film evaluation instrument and film evaluation in general:
1. It .is recommended that the instrument developed in this study be
used by high school and community college teachers, librarians and
audio-visual specialists for experimental purposes only pending
further testing and refinement of the instrument.
2. Teachers anticipating use of the instrument should familiarize
themselves well with the content of the instrument before actual
57
use. It is recommended that each teacher use the instrument in the manner which will benefit him or her best, including scoring
procedures used in evaluating films.
3. It is recommended that the subject of film evaluation be explored
further, particularly on elementary and middle-school levels. The
final instrument developed in this study is aimed at high school and community college classes, but might be revised and adapted
for use in lower grades.
4. It is recommended that the four bases of curriculum and instruction
as proposed by Hass, Bondi and Wiles (1974) be further explored as
considerations in evaluating films and other instructional aids,
as well as educational programs in general.
Suggestions for Further Study
Further refinement and development of the instrument developed in this study is suggested, with the following specific studies a minimum:
1. A determination of inter-rater reliability, using multiple pairs
of raters viewing the same films.
2. A replication of the factor analysis of this study, using a more
appropriate sample size. At least 350 subjects are suggested for the
35-.item instrument.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abbott, M. E. Children's standards in judging films. Teachers College
Record, 1937, 38, 55-64.
Amelio, R. J. Willowbrook cinema study project. Dayton, Ohio: PflaumStandard, 1969.
Amelio, R. J. Film in the classroom. Why use it. How to use it. Dayton,
Ohio: Pflaum-Standard, 1-970.
Anderson, S. B., Ball, S., Murphy, R. T., et al. Encyclopedia of educational
evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1975.
Anderson, W. A. An instrument for school administrators to use in measuring
attitudes and prejudices (Doctoral dissertation, University of Nebraska
Teachers College, 1960). Dissertation Abstracts, 1960, 20, 4314-4315.
(University Microfilms No. 60-1524)
Arrowsmith, W. Film as educator. The Journal of Aesthetic Education, 1969,
3, 73-77.
Beaton, W. Background for screen appreciation. English Journal, 1941, 30,
89-100.
Bell, R., Cain, L. F., Lamoreaux, L. A., et al. Motion pictures in a modern
curriculum: A report on the use of films in the Santa Barbara schools.
Washington: American Council on Education, 1941.
Brown, I. G. The development and administration of a sickle cell anemia
awareness instrument (Doctoral dissertation, University of Tennessee,
1972). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1973, 33, 3749-B.
(University Microfilms No. 73-2428)
Brunstetter, M. R. How to use the educational sound film. Chicago:
Macmillan, 1933.
Brunstetter, M. R. Selecting educational talking pictures. School
Executives Magazine, 1935, 54, 364-365.
Buchanan, A. The film in education. London: Phoenix House, 1951.
Bukalski, P. J. Film research: A critical bibliography with annotations.
Boston: G. K. Hall, 1972.
58
59
Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. Experimental and quasi-experimental
designs for research. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1963.
Chamberlin, R. P. Cinema in adult education: A study of the feature film
series in America (Doctoral dissertation, University of California at
Los Angeles, 1965). Dissertation Abstracts, 1965, 26, 187. (University
Microfilms No. 65-6945)
Clark, C. C. Sound motion pictures as an aid in classroom teaching: A
comparative study of their effectiveness at the junior college level
of instruction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, New York University,
1932.
Comprone, J. Using painting, photography, and film to teach narration.
College English, 1973, 35, 174-178.
Culkin, J. Film study in the high school. New York: Fordham Film Study
Center, 1965.
Dale, E. How to appreciate motion pictures. New York: Macmillan, 1933.
Dale, E. Teaching motion picture appreciation. English Journal, 1936,
25, 113-120.
Dale, E., Dunn, F. W., Hoban, C. F., Jr., & Schneider, E. Motion pictures
in education: A summary of the literature. New York: H. W. Wilson,
1938.
Dale, E., & Ramseyer, L. Teaching with motion pictures: A handbook of
administrative practice (Series II, No. 2). Washington: American
Council on Education, 1937.
Devereux, F. L. The educational talking picture. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1935.
Educational Film Library Association. Film evaluation: Why and how: A
report on the EFLA workshop, January 24-25, 1963. Chicago: Author,
1963.
Fox, D. J. The research process in education. New York: Holt, Rinehart
& Winston, 1969.
Frutchey, F. P., & Dale, E. Evaluation in motion picture appreciation.
Educational Research Bulletin reprint. Columbus: Ohio State University,
1935.
Gollin, R. M. Film as dramatic literature. College English, 1969, 30
424-429.
Groves, P. D. Film in higher education and research. Elmsford, New York:
Pergamon, 1T966.
60
Gray, W. Film aesthetics. In D. C. Stewart (Ed.), Film study in higher education. Washington: American Council on Education, 1966.
Groves, P. D. Film in higher education and research. Elmsford, New York: Pergamon, 1966.
Harman, H. H. Modern factor analysis (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1967.
Hass, G., Bondi, J., & Wiles, J. Curriculum planning: A new approach.
Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1974.
Herman, L. Educational films: Writing, directing, and producing for classroom, television, and industry. New York: Crown, 1965.
Vodgkinson, A. W. Screen education: Teaching a critical approach to
S cinema and television (Reports and papers on mass communication,
No. 42). Paris: UNESCO, 1964.
Kael, P. It's only a movie. In D. C. Stewart (Ed.), Film study in higher education. Washington: American Council on Education, 1966.
Keisman, M. Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn. In G. H. Poteet (Ed.), The compleat guide to film study. Urbana, Illinois: National Council
of Teachers of English, 1972.
Kerlinger, F. N. Foundations of behavioral research: Educational and psychological inquiry. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1964.
Kirk, R. H. An instrument for evaluating college and university health service programs (Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, 1960). Dissertation
Abstracts, 1960, 21, 1166. (University Microfilms No. 60-4887)
Knight, A. An approach to film history. In D. C. Stewart (Ed.), Film study in higher education. Washington: American Council on Education, 1966.
Lacey, R. A. Seeing with feeling: Film in the classroom. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders, 1972.
Landers, J. P. A score card for evaluating physical education programs for handicapped children. Research Quarterly, 1945, 16, 216-220.
Lanier, V. *Parameters of change. Arts and Activities, 1968, 62, 28.
Lewis, A. J., & Miel, A. Supervision for improved instruction: New challenges, new responses. Belmont, California: Wadsworth, 1972.
McLuhan, M. Understanding media. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964.
McLuhan, M, & Fiore, Q. The medium is the message. New York: Bantam, 1967.
Mallery, D. The school and the art of motion pictures. Boston: National Association of Independent Schools, 1966.
61
Mallery, D. Film in the life of the school. Boston: National Association
of Independent Schools, 1968,
Maltin, L. Film: The personal experience. In G. H. Poteet (Ed.), The compleat guide to film study. Urbana, Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English, 1972.
Manchel, F. Film study: A resource guide. Rutherford, New Jersey: Fairleigh Dickinson University, 1973.
May, M. A. Introduction to part III. In M. A. May and A. A. Lumsdaine (Eds.),
Learning from films. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1958.
May, M. A., & Howell, J. J. Film evaluation by road testing. In M. A. May
and A. A. Lumsdaine (Eds.), Learning from films. New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1958.
May, M. A., & Lumsdaine, A. A. (Eds.). Learning from films. New Haven:
Yale University Press, 1958.
May, M. A., & Nerden, J. T. Factors related to the use of motion picture
films by public school teachers. In M. A. May and A. A. Lumsdaine (Eds.),
Learning from films. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1958.
Maynard, R. The celluloid curriculum. Rochelle Park, New Jersey: Hayden, 1971.
Mehrens, W. A., & Lehmann, I. J. Measurement and evaluation in education and
psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1973.
Meierhenry, W. C. Enriching the curriculum through motion pictures. Lincoln:
University of Nebraska Press, 1952.
Mullen, S. M. How to judge motion pictures. New York: Scholastic Magazine
Reprints, 1934.
Parrington, R. An educator's guide to the use of film. Chicago: Argus, 1967.
Peters, C. C., & Van Voorhis, W. R. Statistical procedures and their mathematical bases. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1940.
Peters, J. M. L. Teaching about the film. New York: Columbia University,
1961.
Poteet, G. H. Film as language: Its introduction into a high school curriculum. English Journal, 1968, 57, 1182-1186.
Poteet, G. H. (Ed.). The compleat guide to film study. Urbana, Illinois:
National Council of Teachers of English, 1972.
Rand, H., & Lewis, R. Film and school: A handbook in moving-picture evaluation. New York: D. Appleton-Century, 1937.
Schillaci, A., & Culkin, J. M. Films deliver: Teaching creatively with
film. New York: Citation, 1970.
62
Selby, S. A. The study of film as an art form in American secondary schools
(Doctoral dissertation, Columbia University, 1963). Dissertation Abstracts, 1964, 24, 5098. (University Microfilms No. 64-5689)
Sheridan, M. M., Owen, H. H., Jr., Macrorie, K., & Marcus, F. The motion
picture and the teaching of English. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts,
1965.
Sohn, D. A. Film study and the English teacher. Bloomington: Indiana
University Audio-Visual Center, 1968.
Solomon, S. J. Film study and genre courses. College Composition and Communication, 1974, 25, 277-283.
Stern, A. H. Using films in teaching English composition. English Journal,
1968, 57, 646-648.
Stevens, G., Jr. The mass media in a liberal education. The Educational
Record, 1965, 46, 68-71.
Stewart, D. C. (Ed.). Film study in higher education. Washington: American
Council on Education, 1966.
Stoney, G. C. Breaking the word barrier. In D. C. Stewart (Ed.), Film study
in higher education. Washington: American Council on Education, 1966.
Sutton, R. E. Film study: The seventies and beyond. In G. H. Poteet (Ed.),
The compleat guide to film study. Urbana, Illinois: National Council
of Teachers of English, 1972.
Ulibarri, H. E. Teacher awareness of socio-cultural differences in multicolor classrooms (Doctoral dissertation, University of New Mexico, 1960).
Dissertation Abstracts, 1960, 20, 4313. (University Microfilms No. 601261)
Williams, F. Reasoning with statistics: Simplified examples in communications
research. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1968.
Williams, R. H. An evaluation of policies and standards for student health
service programs. Research Quarterly, 1948, 19, 262-268.
APPENDIX A
DIRECTIONS FOR EVALUATING FILMS WITH THE PRELIMINARY INSTRUMENT
DIRECTIONS FOR EVALUATING FILMS
WITH THE PRELIMINARY INSTRUMENT
In order to familiarize yourself with the instrument you are going to evaluate, the instrument itself should be used in evaluating a film. After viewing the film, please rate each item with a value of 1 to 5 according to the following rating scale:
Standard Score Assignments
For Film Evaluation Instrument Items (Rating Scale)
Numerical Rating Verbal Description of Rating
1 ------ Not at all. Does not deal with this consideration.
Contains no information or reference concerning this consideration.
2 ------ Deals with this consideration only slightly. It is included but is not really a part of the story.
3 ------ Deals with this consideration moderately. Minor or
secondary characters are involved in this consideration. It is a part of the story but not a major part.
4 ------ Above average in dealing with this consideration.
Important characters are involved in this consideration as an important part of the story.
5 ------ To a great extent. This consideration is a major part of the story. The main character or characters are involved in this consideration.
The first column of numbers to the right of the questions provides the possible scores for each item in relation to the film itself. Circle the appropriate number. A separate rating scale card is provided for your convenience. Do not mark the second column of numbers or write comments during the film evaluation.
APPENDIX B
DIRECTIONS FOR EVALUATING
THE FILM EVALUATION INSTRUMENT
DIRECTIONS FOR EVALUATING
THE FILM EVALUATION INSTRUMENT
When you have finished evaluating the film, go back to the beginning of the instrument and rate each item with a value of 1 to 5 according to the following rating scale:
Scale for Rating Preliminary Instrument Items
Numerical Rating Verbal Description of Rating
1 ------ Unacceptable. Highly inappropriate.
The item has no significance to film evaluation.
2 ------ Acceptable but not recommended.
The item has some significance but is not necessary for inclusion in the instrument.
3------ Aporopriate. Desirable for inclusion.
The item is relevant and significant enough to be included in the film evaluation instrument.
4 ------ Highly appropriate. Important.
The item is very important as a part of the film evaluation instrument.
5 ------ Essential.
The item is highly significant and must be included in the film evaluation instrument.
The second column of numbers provides the possible scores for each item for possible inclusion in the final instrument. Circle the appropriate number, and write any comments you may have about the item to the right or on the back of the page. A separate rating card is provided for your convenience.
APPENDIX C
PRELIMINARY INSTRUMENT FOR EVALUATING FILMS FOR HIGH SCHOOL AND COMMUNITY COLLEGE TEACHING
NUMBER ONE
PRELIMINARY INSTRUMENT FOR EVALUATING FILMS FOR HIGH SCHOOL AND COMMUNITY COLLEGE TEACHING
Name of Film Your Teaching Field and Grade Level
Score Assignment Rating for for Evaluation Inclusion in Item of the Film the Instrument Comments
SOCIAL FORCES
1. To what extent does the film deal with a social
co
problem? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
2. To what extent does the film deal with an
established institution? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
3. To what extent does the film present an
environmental or ecological problem? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
4. To what extent does the film advocate changing
values? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
5. To what extent does the film deal with human
morality or moral problems or crises? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
6. To what extent does the film deal with human rights? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Score Assignment Rating for
for Evaluation Inclusion in
Item of the Film the Instrument Comments
7. To what extent does the film deal with the family or family life? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
8. To what extent does the film demonstrate social
change? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 9. To what extent does the film deal with economics? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 10. To what extent does the film deal with the future? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 11. To what extent does the film deal with the past? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 12. To what extent does the film deal with education
in general? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 13. To what extent does the film deal with social or
cultural pressures? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 14. To what extent does the film deal with science or
scientific problems or processes? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 15. To what extent does the film deal with illness or
death? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 16. To what extent does the film contain important
characters who are students? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 17. To what extent does the film deal with an
educational problem? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Score Assignment Rating for
for Evaluation Inclusion in
Item of the Film the Instrument Comments
18. To what extent does the film question accepted
scientific principles? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 19. To what extent does the film deal with natural
phenomena? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 20. To what extent does the film deal with the
mass media? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 21. To what extent does the film deal with personal
communication? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 22. To what extent does the film deal with the
government or government agencies? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 23. To what extent does the film deal with the law
or law enforcement? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 24. To what extent does the film deal with religion
or religious beliefs? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 25. To what extent does the film deal with politics? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 26. To what extent does the film deal with war
or peace? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 27. To what extent does the film deal with a
world problem? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Score Assignment Rating for for Evaluation Inclusion in Item of the Film the Instrument Comments
28. To what extent does the film deal with specific
geographical locations or regions? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 29. To what extent does the film deal with foreign
countries? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
30. To what extent does the film deal with human
beings at certain stages of life? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 31. To what extent does the film deal with children? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 32. To what extent does the film deal with teenagers
or young adults? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 33. To what extent does the film deal with middleaged people? 12 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 34. To what extent does the film deal with elderly
people? 12 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 35. To what extent does the film deal with
psychological and/or emotional problems? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 36. To what extent does the film provide information
about an occupation which might be helpful to
students? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Score Assignment Rating for for Evaluation Inclusion in Item of the Film the Instrument Comments 37. To what extent does the film deal with the
subject of citizenship? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 38. To what extent is.the film a psychological study
of one or more individuals? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 39. To what extent does the film deal with the
cooperation of individuals and/or groups of people? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 40. To what extent does the film deal with love? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 41. To what extent does the film deal with making
choices in life and the consequences that come
from the choices? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 42. To what extent does the film deal with the
physical maturation of one or more persons? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 43. To what extent does the film deal with intellectual
development and/or achievement of one or more
persons? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 44. To what extent does the film deal with the
biological basis of individual development? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 45. To what extent does the film deal with emotional
growth and development? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Score Assignment Rating for for Evaluation Inclusion in Item of the Film the Instrument Comments LEARNING
46. To what extent does the film deal with the general
process of learning? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 47. To what extent does the film deal with the subject
of individual learning? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 48. To what extent does the film stimulate individual
thought? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 49. To what extent do you think the film might
stimulate critical thinking in students? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 50. To what extent does the film deal with
problem solving? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 51. To what extent does the film deal with different
ways of learning, problem solving or achievement? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 52. To what extent does the film deal with the origin
or development of ideas? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 53. To what extent does the film deal with group
learning? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 54. To what extent does the film deal with the
outcomes of learning? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Score Assignment Rating for for Evaluation Inclusion in Item of the Film the Instrument Comments KNOWLEDGE
55. To what extent does the film present information
which might contribute to your course? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 56. To what extent does the film contain historical
information which might be helpful to your students? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 57. To what extent does the film contain knowledge or
information which might be transferred by students
to another situation? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 58. To what extent does the film contain scientific
information which might be helpful to your students? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 59. To what extent does the film deal with a specific
period of history? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 60. To what extent does the film present information
about society or the way people function within
the society? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 61. To what extent does the film contain words or
terms or references which are technically peculiar
to your teaching field or subject? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Score Assignment Rating for for Evaluation Inclusion in Item of the Film the Instrument Comments
62. (To what extent) is the film an adaptation of
a novel, short story or play? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 63. To what extent does the film deal with the
subject or processes of information processing
and assimilation? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 ART
64. To what extent did the film provide an aesthetic
experience for you? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 65. To what extent do you believe the film could
provide an aesthetic experience for your students? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 66. To what extent is the film's story line easy to
follow? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 67. To what extent does the film seem to be an effective
means of communication? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
ENTERTAINMENT
68. To what extent is the film entertaining? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Score Assignment Rating for for Evaluation Inclusion in Item of the Film the Instrument Comments GENERAL
69. To what extent is the film optimistic? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 70. To what extent does the film deal with a problem
or convey a situation in a realistic manner? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONS
1. Would you use this film for your classes? yes no If no, because:
(1) It is not appropriate to my subject area.
(2) It is a poor film.
2. What score (on a scale of 100) do you think the items related to your subject area should obtain in order for the film to be useful to you in your teaching?
3. What percentages would you assign to each of the following seven instrument categories in arriving at the total weighted score?
Social Forces Human Development Learning
Knowledge Entertainment Art General
4. What do you think a minimum average score (out of a possible high of 5) should be for each item to
obtain in order to be included in the final instrument?
5. Would you use a modified version of this instrument to preview or evaluate films for your classes?
yes no
6. (Optional) How do you think such an instrument might be useful to you?
APPENDIX D
INSTRUCTIONS FOR INSTRUMENT EVALUATORS
Although the directions with the instrument scales are complete, and hopefully clear, the following information might help in completing the instrument evaluation:
Step 1--Using the scale on page 1 and the first column of
numbers (1 2 3 4 5), evaluate any entertainment film which you have seen. (This part of the study is included simply to familiarize yourself with the instrument and will not be included in the results of the
study.)
Step 2--Using the scale on page 2 and the second column of
numbers (1 2 3 4 5), evaluate each instrument item
as a film evaluation item or potential film evaluation item, particularly in consideration of the bases of the instrument (Social Forces, Human Development, Learning,
Knowledge, etc.).
Step 3--Answer the open-ended items.
(a) Number 2 means you are assigning a minimum acceptable
grade to those items related to your subject area in
evaluating individual films for possible usefulness in
your teaching. This might be a hypothetical score
for some areas which have few, or even no, items
related to them. Most areas do have at least a few items related specifically to their subject matter,
78
79
though.
(b) The minimum average score in number 3 is the basis
on which items will be eliminated or retained in the
instrument.
Thank you very much, and please indicate so on the back of the instrument or by letter if you would like a copy of the results of the study and/ or copies of the final instrument.
APPENDIX E
PRELIMINARY INSTRUMENT FOR EVALUATING FILMS
FOR HIGH SCHOOL AND COMMUNITY COLLEGE TEACHING
NUMBER TWO
PRELIMINARY INSTRUMENT FOR EVALUATING FILMS FOR HIGH SCHOOL AND COMMUNITY COLLEGE TEACHING
Name of Film Your Teaching Field and Grade Level
Score Assignment Rating for for Evaluation Inclusion in Item of the Film the Instrument Comments
SOCIAL FORCES
00 1. To what extent does the film deal with a social
problem? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
2. To what extent does the film deal with an
established institution? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
3. To what extent does the film present an
environmental or ecological problem? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
4. To what extent does the film advocate changing
values? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
5. To what extent does the film deal with human
morality or moral problems or crises? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
6. To what extent does the film deal with human rights? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Score Assignment Rating for
for Evaluation Inclusion in
Item of the Film the Instrument Comments
7. To what extent does the film deal with the family or family life? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
8. To what extent does the film demonstrate social change? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 9. To what extent does the film deal with economics? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 10. To what extent does the film deal with the future? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 11. To what extent does the film deal with the past? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 12. To what extent does the film deal with social or
cultural pressures? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 13. To what extent does the film deal with science or
scientific problems or processes? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 14. To what extent does the film deal with illness or
death? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 15. To what extent does the film deal with an
educational problem? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 16. To what extent does the film deal with the
mass media? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 17. To what extent does the film deal with personal
communication? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Score Assignment Rating for
for Evaluation Inclusion in
Item of the Film the Instrument Comments
18. To what extent does the film deal with the
government or government agencies? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 19. To what extent does the film deal with the law
or law enforcement? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 20. To what extent does the film deal with religion
or religious beliefs? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 21. To what extent does the film deal with politics? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 22. To what extent does the film deal with war
or peace? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 23. To what extent does the film deal with a
world problem? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 24. To what extent does the film deal with specific
geographical locations or regions? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
25. To what extent does the film deal with human
beings at certain stages of life? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 26. To what extent does the film deal with children? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 27. To what extent does the film deal with teenagers
or young adults? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Score Assignment Rating for for Evaluation Inclusion in Item of the Film the Instrument Comments
28. To what extent does the film deal with middleaged people? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 29. To what extent does the film deal with elderly
people? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 30. To what extent does the film deal with
psychological and/or emotional problems? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 31. To what extent does the film deal with the
subject of citizenship? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 32. To what extent does the film deal with the
cooperation of individuals and/or groups of people? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 33. To what extent does the film deal with love? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 34. To what extent does the film deal with making
choices in life and the consequences that come
from the choices? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 35. To what extent does the film deal with the
physical maturation of one or more persons? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 36. To what extent does the film deal with intellectual
development and/or achievement of one or more
persons? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Score Assignment Rating for for Evaluation Inclusion in Item of the Film the Instrument Comments
37. To what extent does the film deal with emotional
growth and development? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
LEARNING
38. To what extent does the film deal with the general
process of learning? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 39. To what extent does the film deal with the subject
of individual learning? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 40. To what extent does the film stimulate individual
thought? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 45 41. To what extent do you think the film might
stimulate critical thinking in students? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 42. To what extent does the film deal with
problem solving? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 43. To what extent does the film deal with different
ways of learning, problem solving or achievement? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 44. To what extent does the film deal with the origin
or development of ideas? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 45. To what extent does the film deal with group
learning? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Score Assignment Rating for for Evaluation Inclusion in Item of the Film the Instrument Comments
46. To what extent does the film deal with the
outcomes of learning? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
KNOWLEDGE
47. To what extent does the film present information
which might contribute to your course? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 48. To what extent does the film contain historical
information which might be helpful to your students? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 49. To what extent does the film contain knowledge
or information which might be transferred by
students to another situation? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 50. To what extent does the film contain scientific
information which might be helpful to your students? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 51. To what extent does the film present information about
society or the way people function within the society? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 52. To what extent does the film contain words or terms
or references which are technically peculiar to
your teaching field or subject? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 53. (To what extent) is the film an adaptation of a
novel, short story or play? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Score Assignment Rating for for Evaluation Inclusion in Item of the Film the Instrument Comments
54. To what extent does the film deal with the
subject of or processes of information processing
and assimilation?. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 ART
55. To what extent did the film provide an aesthetic
experience for you? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 56. To what extent do you believe the film could
provide an aesthetic experience for your students? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 57. To what extent is the film's story line easy
to follow? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 58. To what extent does the film seem to be an
effective means of communication? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 ENTERTAINMENT
59. To what extent is the film entertaining? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
GENERAL
60. To what extent does the film deal with a problem
or convey a situation in a realistic manner? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONS
1. Would you use this film for your classes? yes no If no, because:
(1) It is not appropriate to my subject area.
(2) It is a poor film.
2. What score or grade do you think the items related to your subject area should obtain in order for the film to be useful to you in your teaching? (For example, a score of 75 on a scale of 100)
3. What do you think a minimum average score (out of a possible high of 5) should be for each item to obtain in order for that item to be included in the final instrument?
4. Would you use a modified version of this instrument to preview or evaluate films for your classes?
yes no
5. (Optional) How do you think such an instrument might be useful to you? (Please use the back of this page if needed.)
co
Co
APPENDIX F
SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES
WITH PARTICIPATING EVALUATORS, BY STATE
Florida
The Bolles School, Jacksonville, Florida Broward Community College, Fort Lauderdale, Florida Florida Junior College, Jacksonville, Florida Miami-Dade Community College, Miami, Florida Newberry Junior-Senior High School, Newberry, Florida Santa Fe Community College, Gainesville, Florida Georgia
Gordon Lee High School, Chickamauga, Georgia Lafayette High School, Lafayette, Georgia Lakeview-Fort Oglethorpe High School, Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia South Carolina
Spartanburg Methodist College, Spartanburg, South Carolina Tennessee
Harrima n High School, Harriman, Tennessee Roane State Community College, Harriman, Tennessee
89
APPENDIX G
FACTORS AND FACTOR LOADINGS FOR ALL ITEMS IN THE FIELD TEST
Item Fa 1 Fa 2 Fa 3 Fa 4 Fa 5 Fa 6 Fa 7 Fa 8 Fa 9 Fa 10 Fa 11 Fa 12
1. .474 .326 -.166 .123 .465 .075 .125 .125 .193 .036 .136 -.181
2. .634 .208 -.118 .241 .355 .148 -.022 .225 .249 .128 .075 -.166
3. .330 .141 .431 -.117 .605 .191 .171 .151 -.021 -.050 .194 -.074
4. .447 .378 -.245 .101 .398 -.050 .114 .189 .159 .244 -.012 .119
5. .463 .144 -.197 .361 .616 -.087 .081 .086 .197 .107 -.037 .033
6. .390 .219 .006 .017 .731 .301 -.073 -.140 .083 .151 -.027 -.049
7. .704 .029 -.083 .124 .452 .194 -.121 .126 .059 .170 -.033 -.132
8. .272 .304 -.143 -.188 .497 .079 .384 .116 .254 .336 -.192 -.011
9. .763 .070 .190 .036 .006 .106 -.120 .220 .024 .126 .014 -.306
10. .404 .526 .298 -.067 .333 .078 -.056 -.088 -.039 .177 .113 -.164
11. .217 -.005 .335 .152 .457 -.128 .010 .108 -.263 .415 -.141 -.193
12. .346 .115 .110 -.103 .762 .111 -.074 .012 .148 .196 .118 .113
13. .344 .219 .658 .006 .225 .184 .073 .011 -.141 -.108 -.022 .061
14. .578 .211 .085 .112 .476 .176 -.170 -.013 -.170 .331 -.022 .158
15. .060 .764 .037 -.249 .028 .169 .028 .227 -.054 .219 .278 -.036
16. .761 .240 .014 .092 .171 -.025 .003 -.156 .057 -.058 .034 -.119
17. .394 .421 .037 -.004 .394 .033 .048 -.150 .407 .372 -.002 .209
18. .877 -.091 .087 -.042 -.028 .065 -.021 .026 -.030 .099 -.014 .125
19. .908 .126 .106 -.008 .109 .092 .031 .114 -.057 .147 -.040 -.049
20. .775 -.017 -.061 .295 .316 .031 .008 .063 .063 .187 .045 .174
21. .746 .041 .058 .292 .364 .009 .086 .150 .045 .142 .014 .162
22. .764 .134 .089 .092 .242 .048 .187 .089 .109 -.098 .218 -.043
90
91
Item Fa 1 Fa 2 Fa 3 Fa 4 Fa 5 Fa 6 Fa 7 Fa 8 Fa 9 Fa 10 Fa 11 Fa 12
23. .496 .215 -.079 -.095 .321 .160 .275 .310 .159 .058 .429 .085
24. .310 .150 .296 -.002 .367 .188 .170 .563 -.119 -.084 .000 .159
25. .296 .074 -.202 .053 .047 .213 -.166 .090 .003 .785 -.032 -.112
26. .539 .299 -.191 -.094 -.015 .248 .080 .025 -.080 .428 .438 .222
27. .538 .323 .183 -.143 .164 .259 .036 -.201 .003 .493 .275 .268
28. .526 .264 .110 -.109 .236 .228 .105 -.141 -.065 .490 .179 .319
29. .821 .201 -.000 .124 .056 .123 .200 -.133 -.119 .205 .187 .083
30. .188 .335 .152 .030 .455 .122 .090 -.054 .326 .459 .318 .287
31. .743 .113 .274 -.289 -.026 -.132 .045 .229 .063 .074 -.252 .141
32. .633 .264 -.123 -.023 .108 .132 -.011 .022 .394 .322 .074 .039
33. .518 .164 -.166 .113 .251 .219 -.083 .010 .251 .421 -.009 .229
34. .345 .217 -.162 .082 .158 .223 -.115 -.145 .737 .187 .003 -.046
35. .194 .325 .082 -.126 .089 .009 .072 .159 .072 .797 .030 -.038
36. .450 .390 .078 .178 .061 .106 -.078 .190 .362 .456 .334 .034
37. .066 .273 .065 .080 .391 .042 .167 -.090 .372 .700 .057 -.081
38. .087 .785 .174 .079 .091 -.032 .102 -.137 -.030 .176 .308 .128
39. .157 .889 .169 .120 .155 .034 -.030 -.084 -.003 .139 .081 .021
40. -.040 .448 -.060 .329 -.110 .131 .383 .139 .402 -.082 .082 .186
41. -.357 .203 -.052 .393 .149 .180 .384 -.123 .410 .324 -.243 -.123
42. -.071 .573 .024 .217 .145 .291 -.141 -.025 .397 .094 -.273 .108
43. .195 .709 .151 .051 .175 .248 .013 -.033 .313 .108 -.320 .042
44. .162 .811 .140 .191 .188 -.081 .069 .169 .126 -.023 -.107 .017
45. .213 .783 .197 .219 .028 .124 -.214 .099 .098 .171 -.029 -.041
46. .145 .630 .314 .109 .074 .193 -.055 .066 .247 .209 .025 .086
92
Item Fa 1 Fa 2 Fa 3 Fa 4 Fa 5 Fa 6 Fa 7 Fa 8 Fa 9 Fa 10 Fa 11 Fa 12 47. -.280 .255 .514 -.117 .344 .161 -.072 -.073 .193 .086 -.172 -.065
48. -.029 .385 .375 .327 .373 .272 -.254 .200 -.294 -.010 -.111 -.137
49. -.184 .239 .616 .076 .239 .187 -.107 -.012 .486 .056 .062 -.061
50. .146 .273 .773 .103 -.210 .169 -.045 -.022 -.173 .061 .144 -.013
51. .140 .404 .165 .234 .310 -.094 -.159 .082 .330 .321 .415 -.122
52. -.020 /214 .770 .105 -.084 -.165 -.061 .246 .025 -.039 -.037 -.013
53. .177 .050 .099 .283 -.027 .080 -.132 .796 -.057 .159 .056 .062
54. .276 .470 .259 -.074 .111 .021 -.202 .352 .008 .353 .395 .076
55. .130 .150 .018 .869 -.035 .178 -.037 .118 .089 .005 -.018 .150
56. .219 .190 .153 .885 .028 .136 -.053 .088 .062 -.046 -.001 .060
57. .167 -.002 .244 .076 .048 .776 -.043 .213 .210 .226 -.009 .175
58. .026 .110 .214 .375 .234 .576 -.174 .136 .387 -.028 .157 -.129
59. .231 .019 .160 .378 .217 .715 .151 .018 -.092 .008 .127 -.016
60. .130 .316 -.098 .032 .072 .809 .109 -.044 .111 .142 -.069 -.024
APPENDIX H
ASSIGNMENT OF ITEMS TO CURRICULUM CATEGORIES
Category Maximum Score Items Social Sciences I 65 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 17, 25, 28, 19
Social Sciences II 30 1, 2, 8, 12, 25, 28 Physical Sciences 15 25, 27, 28 Biological Sciences 30 10, 14, 18, 25, 27, 28 Humanities 60 3, 8, 13, 25, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35
Communication 35 25, 28, 29, 32, 33, 34, 35 Education 45 11, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 28, 35
Business-Economics 15 6, 25, 28 General 30 7, 15, 16, 25, 26, 28
93
APPENDIX I
FINAL INSTRUMENT FOR EVALUATING FILMS FOR HIGH SCHOOL AND COMMUNITY COLLEGE TEACHING
Name of Film
Item Item Score SOCIAL FORCES
1. To what extent does the film deal with a social problem? 1 2 3 4 5
2. To what extent does the film deal with an established institution? 1 2 3 4 5
3. To what extent does the film deal with human morality or moral problems or crises? 1 2 3 4 5 4. To what extent does the film deal with human rights? 1 2 3 4 5
5. To what extent does the film deal with the family or family life? 1 2 3 4 5 6. To what extent does the film deal with economics? 1 2 3 4 5 7. To what extent does the film deal with the future? 1 2 3 4 5 8. To what extent does the film deal with the past? 1 2 3 4 5
9. To what extent does the film deal with social or cultural pressures? 1 2 3 4 5 10. To what extent does the film deal with illness or death? 1 2 3 4 5 11. To what extent does the film deal with an educational
problem? 1 2 3 4 5 12. To what extent does the film deal with the law or law
enforcement? 1 2 3 4 5 13. To what extent does the film deal with religion or
religious beliefs? 1 2 3 4 5 94
|
Full Text |
PAGE 1
THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN INSTRUMENT FOR EVALUATING FILMS FOR USE IN HIGH SCHOOL AND COMMUNITY COLLEGE TEACHING By RICHARD VERLE BARNES A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 1977
PAGE 2
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Grateful acknowledgment is made to the following faculty members who aided in the making of this dissertation: Dr. Glen Hass, who served as my committee chairman and whose innovative concepts of curriculum and instruction served as the structural basis for the study. Dr. Al Smith, who contributed much to the dissertation and my overall graduate program in the area of post-secondary education, and who helped focus on problems throughout the dissertation process. Dr. William C. Childers, who contributed invaluable ideas in the area of film. Dr. Gordon Lawrence, who served as a committee member when I needed him the most and who helped to bring order to committee discussions. Dr. Linda Crocker, who made the final copy of this dissertation a reality by helping me to bring order to my final data analysis. Loving thanks is made to my wife, Shirley, and my son, Adam, who not only put up with me throughout the writing of the dissertation but who gave me reason to comrlete it. ii
PAGE 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................. ii ABSTRACT ................................ V CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . 1 Statement of Purpose Need for the Study. Background Information Limitations of the Study Definitions Assumptions Problem Statem ent CHAPTER I I REVIEW OF SELECTED LITERATURE Literature on Film Education and Film Study. Literature on Film Evaluation . Related Literature on Film in Education 1 1 5 10 12 13 13 15 15 21 27 Literature on Instrument Development ................ 29 CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY .31 Design .31 Procedures Followed in the Study .................. 31 CHAPTER IV PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA. ................ 38 ii i
PAGE 4
Results of the Pilot Study ..................... 38 Results cf the Field Test ..................... 39 CHAPTER V CONCLUSION 51 Summary 51 Discussion ............................. 53 Conclusions .. Recommendations Suggestions for Further Study BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... APPENDICES A. DIRECTIONS FOR EVALUATING FILMS WITH THE PRELIMINARY INSTRUMENT 55 56 57 58 .. 64 B. DIRECTIONS FOR EVALUATING THE FILM EVALUATION INSTRUMENT .66 C. PRELIMINARY INSTRUMENT FOR EVALUATING FILMS FOR HIGH SCHOOL AND COMMUNITY COLLEGE TEACHING NUMBER ONE ....... 68 D. INSTRUCTIONS FOR INSTRUMENT EVALUATORS ............. 78 E. PRELIMINARY INSTRUMENT FOR EVALUATING FILMS FOR HIGH SCHOOL AND COMMUNITY COLLEGE TEACHING, NUMBER TWO .... 81 F. SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES WITH PARTICIPATING EVALUATORS, BY STATE .. 89 G. FACTORS ArW FACTOR LOADINGS FOR ALL ITEMS IN THE FIELD TEST .. 90 H. ASSIGNMENT OF ITEMS TO CURRICULUM CATEGORIES .......... 93 I. FINAL INSTRUMENT FOR EVALUATING FILMS FOR HIGH SCHOOL AND COMMUMITY COL.LEGE TEACHING .. J. SAMPLE LETTER TO A FILM INSTRUCTOR BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ...... iv .94 .97 .. 98
PAGE 5
Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Education THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN INSTRUMENT FOR EVALUATING FILMS FOR USE IN HIGH SCHOOL AND COMMUNITY COLLEGE TEACHING By Richard Verle Barnes August 1977 Chairman: C. Glen Hass Major Department: Curriculum and Instruction The purpose of this study was the development of a comprehensive film evaluation instrument which might be used by high school and community college teachers in selecting entertainment films for classroom use. Guiding concepts in developing the study were the four bases of curriculum and instruction as identified by Hass, Bondi and Wiles: Social Forces; Human Development; Learning; and Knowledge. A preliminary instrument of 70 items and six open-ended questions was designed and offered to evaluators in a pilot study. The instrument was structured around Hass et al. 's four bases of curriculum and instruction and additional categories of Art, Entertainment and General. Subjects in the pilot study were 10 high school and community college teachers who used the instrument to evaluate a film and who evaluated the importance of each item on a scale of one to five. From the pilot study, ten items and one open-ended question were eliminated from the instrument. V
PAGE 6
Evaluators in the field test were 168 high school and community col-lege teachers and other educators from Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, and Tennessee. Teachers who served comprised eight different academic areas identified by the investigator prior to the execution of the study. A total of 308 potential evaluators were invited to participate, with 192 evaluators returning responses. From the 192 responses obtained, 24 were eliminated from the final data analysis, primarily because of incomplete instrument responses. Thus a total of 168 evaluators' responses, obtained by mail and personal contact, were used in the validation study. Interviews were conducted with selected respondents, specifically soliciting constructive comments about the instrument and instrument items. Internal reliability was determined by a two-way analysis of variance as recommended by Kerlinger, and \!/as estimated to be .984. A factor analysis of the data was also run. The initial factor method was the principal axis solution, w h ich identified 12 major factors. The factor analysis was run again, rotating 12 factors to varimax criterion, with nine factors retained in the final instrument revision. Labels were assigned to each factor. Overall, the factor analysis, along with the analysis of mean ratings by the evaluators, resulted in the elimination of 25 items, leaving a final instrument of 35 items. Instrument structure remained essentially the same, with the categories of Art, Entertainment, and General being consolidated i n to new categories of Aesthetics and Communication. The major conclusion in this study is that the instrument might be useful to teachers in evaluating films, but further refinement and development needs to be done in order to assure that the instrument is useable for purposes other than experimental purposes. vi
PAGE 7
CHAPTER I I NTRODUCTI Otl Statement of Pl!rpose The purpose of this study \vas the development of a comprehensive film evaluation instrument which might be used by high school and community college teachers in selecting entertainment films for classroom use and which follows sound principles of curriculum and instruction according to present standards. Need for the Stu~ The recognition of film as a medium of communication and education, as well as a contemporary art form, has resulted in a continuing growth in the use of films for educational purposes. In addition to educational or instructional films, the entertainment film has in recent years been recognized as a legitimate adjunct to teaching in many different subject areas. But while evaluation of instructional films has been given considerable attention over the years, there has been little offered in the way of specific evaluation criteria for use of entertainment films in education. There is presently a need in education for helpful and definitive evaluations of film in a manner \vhich might be applied to the curriculum. The following six major reasons contribute to the need for the study: 1. The power of the film medium and its meaningfulness in today's society. 2. The growth of film use and film study in education, particularly post-secondary education. l
PAGE 8
3. The need for educators to know the potential uses of film. 4. The need for better evaluations of entertainment films. 5. The apparent gap between film evaluation efforts of the 19301s and 1940's and the lack of quality evaluation materials today. 2 6. The groi,,1th of the community college as an institution of postsecondary education, and the continuing presence of the secondary school as an important component of American education. An important consideration in dealing with any educational situation is the idea of a school as a synergetic organization as proposed by Lewis and Miel (1972). As much as any other institution in American society, the community college must function as an integral component of the society, which allows for continual growth and constant change. This is one o f its b )sic reasons for e xistence. Similarly, the high school must be able to change with and for the society 1~hi ch it serves. Film a 1 so is, partly because of the society and par t ly because of its own influence o n the society, a changing, growing, collective organism. The idea of curriculum as the experiences of students by Hass, Bondi and W iles (1974) al s o c arries particular significance in the area of film. By its vel'y nc1tu, e film is J medium which requires its audience to experience something in viewin g Also, in considering the four bases of curriculum and instruction a s presented by Hass, Bondi and l1iles, film seems to fit into the instructional progr a m in many ways. As one of the mass media, film is definitely an i mportant social force. It is also in its various forms an important medium for imparting many kinds of knowledge, and for stimulating learning and enhancing human development in various ways. In mentioning the bombardment of today's youth with motion pictures and television, Keisman (1972) poses the question, "How do we in education deal
PAGE 9
3 with human beings who possess this great raw material when we were motivated differently''. (p. 86)? The proposed instrument might help teachers to deal with the generation of students who have been motivated to watch television and mot ion pictures rather than to read books, hopefully in a manner which will help to integrate viewing and reading. The uses and purposes of films in education are important considerations, particularly as films are used by teachers. Dale, Dunn, Hoban, and Schneider (1938) said that "One of the major defects in much of the use which teachers make of films is the failure to evaluate properly either the film used or the use made of it" (p. 112). According to much of the literature, this problem does not seem to have improved much in the three decades since. Dale and his colleagues also emphasized that motion pictures available for sc h ool use are of exceedingly unequal value, and that teachers should not only select films w ell but should report their basis of selection to aid others in using films. Of using poor films, Brunstetter (1935) has said, "A poor film may be just a waste of time or even do positive harm" (p. 364). It is the belief of the writer that there are already too many influences or components of the curriculum and environn~nt doing positive harm to the educational program, and the use of poor films should not proliferate the situation further. In reference to using film as a teaching tool, Guss, as reported by the Educational Film Library Association (1963), emphasized that films must be evaluated before use. Guss also emphasized that even before a film is selected for evaluation, the user must determine what purpose he wishes the film to fulfill, and that he must view the materials as a means of obtaining a definite end in establishing criteria for evaluation. Guss also assigned significance to the audience viewing the film. The user of the film, Guss said, must know exactly what effects it will have on
PAGE 10
4 the audience. Simila rly, May and Howell (1958 ) have said, "The same film may be used for many different teaching purposes, at different grade levels, with pupils of varying abilities. It may have many values. To evaluate it means to 'bring out' or determine its values" (p. 266). While May and Howell were primarily concerned with teaching films, the same can be said about "entertainment" f ilms as well. The instructor must know the possible uses of the films which he plans to show to his classes in order for them to be effective teaching materials. The need for an evaluative instrument to assist in judg ing the worth of films was the basis for this study. One of the primary problems of film evaluation in particular and film study in general has traditionally been the need for specific evaluative criteria for judgin g films. Dale et al. expressed dismay at the lack of truly helpful, scientific methods of evaluation for the voluminous film material as early a s 1938. "The administrator who s e arches for a scientific approach to his probl ems of selection and the t e acher who looks for authoritative advice to supp lement her rule of thu m b criteria must stumble through the oak forest of educational literature t o find the f e w spri g s of evaluative mistletoe" (p. 248). Of this need, May and Howell (1958) have said, "There is an obvious need for a method of appraising the values of a film (both positive and negative) that has some of th e objectivity and reliability of the experimental method and at the same time the breadth, richness, and practicality of the preview method'' (p. 267). Th~ purpose of the present study was to develop an instrument which combines these attributes and which helps the instructor formulate reliable judgements. Finally, since the community college is a special type of institution
PAGE 11
with special problems and considerations, a film evaluation instrument is needed which can be used by community college teachers as well as high school teachers. Background Information 5 The use of films in education followed naturally from the development of films as an art form and as a medium of ccmmunication and entertainment. Selby (1964) has identified the beginnings of teaching film in the classroom as the early 1930's. The teaching of film, he says, entered the schools at that time "primarily a s a response of fear of the adverse effects of motion pictures on youth" (p. 5098). According to Selby, film programs grew through the 1 930's but disap p eared during World War II as other interests acquired priority in the schools. After the war, there seems to have been a gradual incre a se in the use of films in education until the early 1960's, when film as an academic discipline began to blossom. Dale (1933), in his How to Appr~ci?te Motion Pictures, was one of the exponents of the use of films in general, and film evaluation, in particular. Four years later, with Ramseyer, he wrote Teaching With Motion Pictures: A Handbook of Administrative Practice. While both books seem to provide what might be accepted today, they were quite innovative at the time. Frorn th e realization that motion pictures might be useful in education came the need for evaluation of individual films. Most film evaluation pro cedures used in educ ation have traditionally dealt with the "suitability" of the motion pictu r e in question. Considerations dealing viith the "viewability" of the film by children represented prime factors in film evaluation. The fear of adverse effects mentioned by Selby seemed best to manifest itself in film evaluation.
PAGE 12
6 One of the main problems of film evaluation instruments of the past was that many of the instruments were too short or incomplete. The information sought from these instruments was scarce and did not pro vi de adequate eva 1uative criteria. An attempt was made to alleviate this problem after World War II, when many educat o rs again turned their attention to motion pictures and the possibilities offered by them. The Yale Motion Picture Research Project was initiated in 1946 and lasted eight years. Sponsored by the Motion Picture Association of America and Teaching Film Custodians, the project included the exp erimental studies of problems of production and utilization. The primary implication of the project as reported by May and Lumsdaine (1958) was that the gains in knowledge from some instructional films without sup plementary instruction justified their use in education. Since the Yale project was completed, there appear to have been no attempts at improving films and f ilm use by evaluation in a comprehensive manner. Film in education has generally existed as a part of other subjects, particularly English. As Selby (1964) says, "The film was seldom treated as an art form equal to print literature, and was always a peripheral con cern of the English teacher" (p. 5098). Even today, in secondary schools as well as many two-year and four-year colleges, film is largely a part of the domain o.f the English department, or in some cases, the communications or jou rnalism depar t ments. One of the goals of this study was to help teachers in other areas use f ilms more effectively. Guiding concepts in designing this study were the four bases of curriculu m and instruction as identified by Hass, Bondi and Wiles (1974). The four bases are Social Forces, Human Development, Learning, and Knowledge. If these
PAGE 13
7 four concepts can be considered bases of curriculu1n planning in general, they should serve well as bases in the pl anning of film usage. Hass et al. (1974) say that all four curriculum bases are needed "for providing balanc e in a curriculum" (p. xix). The use of the four bases, they say, provides a "multi-dimensional approach" (Hass et al., 1974, p. xix) to planning curriculum and instruction. Hass et al. have identified the following four g eneral goals in curriculum planning: education for citizenship. ~~lf-realization, yocation, and critical thinking. "Often the same program of learning," they say, "can contribute to several of these goals which should be kept in mind at all levels of education" (Hass et al., 1974, p. xix). The terms and defi ni ti ons offered by Hass, Bondi and Wiles to identify the four curriculum bases were accepted for use in this study. In addition, the concepts of entertainment and art were minor considerations in designing the original instru111ent, as \'Jell as a "general" category for evaluation of the films. Social Forces Social forces might include all those forces whic h affect the individual within the context 0 f the total society. Particularly, Hass et al. (1974) say, "One of the major areas of consideration in all curriculum planning must be social forces a s reflected in (1) social goals. ( 2 ) cultural uniformity an d diversity, ( 3 ) s o cial pressures, and (4) social c hange" (p. xviii). Essential considerations in any educationa l situation are social forces which combine to co mprise present societies as well as developing future societies. Hass et al. (1974) say: "To understand schools and school systems, one must relate then to the surrounding cultural, economic, historical,
PAGE 14
8 philosophical, and political circumstances. Since education is always an exp ression of a civilization and of a political and economic system, schools must harmonize with the lives and ideas of men in a particular time and place" (p. 3). As a purveyor (on a mass, highly effective level) of the circumstances mentioned above, film acquires a special significance within the society and potentially within education. "As a major element in curriculum planning and teaching," Hass et al. (1974) say, "present social forces and future trends must be regularly reconsidered11 (p. 3). The key word in this statement is 11reconsidered." Without regular reconsideration of all elements of an educational system, there would be unnecessary deterioration in quality. As a powerful mass communications medium, film is especially important when considering Hass et al. 's (1974) statement that 11social forces are always changing11 (p. 5). Generally speaking, the film industry must change with the social forces in order to maintain its existence. In addition to being a communicati o n medium, film itself is a social force. Human DeveloRmen~ Individual human development is a continuing process as long as an individual exists. It involves different kinds of development which combine to form what may be called total human development. Hass et al. say that c u rriculum planning should be guided by five aspects of development: (1) Biological basis, ( 2 ) Physical maturation, (3) Intellectual development and achievement, (4) Em0tional growth and development, (5) Cultural pressures. Each of these five aspects might be conm1unicated in a meaningful manner in motion pictures, and the motion pictures themselves might help to further the understanding of all the aspects as well as total human development.
PAGE 15
9 Hass et al. (1974) say, "Human beings are qualitatively different at the different age levels for which we must provide in curriculum planning and in .the planning of teaching" (p. xviii). This is especially important in the community collee, since the community college provides learning opportunities for students at different ages and different stages of develop ment but generally rEqui res the same level of performance of a 11 students. Knowledge Hass et al. (1974) say, "Today knowledge must be considered one of the bases of the curriculum. A major question is, ~ rhat knowledge is of the most worth? How shall knowledge be organized in the curriculum'' (p. xix)? These questions must be asked by every teacher in planning his courses, and must be considered by the potential user of a film for educational purposes. Hass et al. (1974) also state, "Kno\t1ledge about the nature of knowledge enables the curriculum planner to provide for learning that is useful, or problem-oriented_, or that will be most likely to be transferred_ by the learner from one situation to another" (p. xix). The emphasis on knowledge which is useful and problem-oriented is an important ccnsideration in using any kind of film, including entertainment films. The transferral of knowledge by the learner, however, should be one of the primary goals of any film user. Learning Hass et al. (1974) emphasize the co111plexity of learning and individual differences in learning in their support of learning as one of the bases of cDrriculum and instruction (pp. 111-161). In this study, learning was considered as it is presented on film, or as individual learning is stimulated by the film itself.
PAGE 16
10 Entertainment A statement by Maltin (1972) helped to justify the inclusion of enter-tainment as one of the instrument's criteria of evaluation: II In order to appreciate the films of the past, one must always keep in mind that the directors who made them always had one idea foremost in their rninds--to entertain. One can make a relevant statement while entertaining" (p. 150). Entertainment is an area which is often ignored in American education at times when it could be of immense value as an adjunct to serious education. Art Since film itself is an art form, it was accepted that art should serve as a minor part of the evaluative criteria of the proposed instrument. While 11art11 is sometimes a nebulous, undefinable concept, an assumption was made that the community college and high school teachers using the instrument would be able to assign their own meanings to the term in evaluating films. Limitations of the Study Since this study was intended for specific purposes, there were definite limitations to the study itself as well as the results which developed from it. Following are limitations which need particular emphasis: l. It must be emphasized that this study dealt with motion picture evaluation, as 6pposed to motion picture appreciation or criticism. The writer adopted the stance taken by Rand and Lewis (1937) in regards to motion picture appreciation or criticism: "We neither condemn pictures v,holesale nor advertise them. He try to evaluate them. We are engaged in setting up standards for judging them" (p. v). 2. The evaluation instrument developed in this study dealt almost entirely with film content as opposed to art or form.
PAGE 17
11 3. The nature and design of the study did not deal with the film evaluators in terms of their preparation or qualification in film. Rather, they participated as teachers or instructional planners, experts in education who were to apply their expertise to film evaluation for possible use in teaching. 4. There was an understanding in designing this study that complete objectivity in film evaluation would be unattainable. While the evaluation form was aimed at perfection in evaluation for the individual teacher, it was ac cepted that a degree of subjectivity would influence the teacher's evaluation of individual films. 5. One important aspect in film evaluation for use in education is the level of application. It was recognized that this study was an attempt to develop an i nstrument for specific application on limited levels of instruction--from the first year of high school through the second year of college. While it may eventually be modified for use on other levels of instruction, the instrument will be limited to some of the subjects offered in community colleges and high schools at these levels of instruction. 6. Since the primary purpose of the proposed instrument was for teacher evaluation of films for potential use, this study was not concerned with the assessment of factual information included in the films viewed. 7. It was also to be emphasized that the proposed instrument will be con sidered only as an adjunct to teaching, a tool which the teacher may use to aid him in the selection of materials. Neither the instrument nor the films evaluated by the in~trument are intended to replace the teacher or his abilities in any manner. 8. The use of both mail and personal requests in acquiring evaluators might bias results or the return rate of responses.
PAGE 18
Definitions For purposes of clarity, the following definitions of terms are offered as th e y were use d in this study: Film Evaluation--The assignment of values to selected qualities of individual films for specific purposes or uses. 12 Film Appreciation--The viewing and study of films designed for en joyment and awareness of films rather than actual measurement or criticism of qualities of films. Film Study--Academic study of motion pictures including education of students about historical, artistic, and technical aspects of film as well as film production. Designed to increase motion picture understanding and appreciation as well as developing critical abilities of students. Instructional or Educational Film--A motion picture produced with the specific purpose of imparting knowledge, information or ideas to viewers. Entertainment Film--A motion picture which is usually produced for commercial purposes and g enerally distributed on a wide scale, ,..,ith its primary intention t o be ente rtainment. Rating ScaleA measuring instrument which requires a rater or observer to assign th e rated object to categories or criteria which have numerals assigned to them. Curriculum--"/\11 the experiences that indivi dual learners have in a program of educatio n which is planned in terms of a framework of theory and research or past and present practice used in the program planning" (Hass et al 1974, p. xvii). Instruction--"The activities dealing directly with the teaching of pupils and with improving the quality of teaching" (Hass et al., 1974, p. viii).
PAGE 19
13 Evaluators--Th e participants in this study; high school and community college teachers in various subject areas, and other educators who deal with the instructiona l program in some way. The terms 11filn1,11 "motion picture," and "moving picture" were used interchangeably throughout the study. Assumptions The following assumptions were made concerning this study: l. Filrris other than instructional films can be used as valuable educational tools. 2. Films other than instructional films can be evaluated for use in various subject areas. 3. The auxilia ry values or purposes of a film may be used well in certain educational settings, such as a n entertainment film as an aid t o teaching social studi es Problem Statement The major problem inves t igated in this study was: Could a valid, reliable instrument be developed which could be used by teachers to evaluate entertainment films for educational purposes? Consistent with the purpose of the present study, the following activities were proposed: 1. The investigator would attempt to develop an instrument for evaluation of non-instructional films which might help teachers in various subject areas to determine the value of these films for their teac hing.
PAGE 20
2. A prelimin a ry version of the instrument would be pilot tested, evaluated and refined. 3. The reliability and validity of the final form of the instrument would be investigated. 14
PAGE 21
CHAPTER II REVIEW OF SELECTED LITERATURE The literature reviewed in this study is reporte d in four sections dealing with the following subjects: 1. Film Education and Film Study as a Subject for Study 2. The Evaluation of Films in Education 3. Related Literature on Film in Education 4. Literature on Instrument Development Literature on Film Education and Film Study The study of film a s a legitimate academic subject has grown tremendously in recent years. \>Jhil e not the primary e m phasi s of this study, film study as an academic e n deavor is closely enough related to the present study to merit a brief revi e w of literature. Film evaluation can be a part of film study, and s e rious f-ilm study can help the individu a l teacher or student in becoming a b ette r f ilm evaluator. Most s t udies o r reports dealing with film study are simple compilation efforts or.collections of f acts. E xamples suc h as the A m erican Film Institute Guide to College Fil!:!:!_5tudy and the Arizona E!!.91.ish Bulletin Poll do not deal with problem s or i s sues involved in film study itself. Other repor t s and a rticles provide some g e neral pr edictions for the future of film study, deal with the importance o f film or make recommenda-tions for film study courses. This section primarily reviews literature dealing 15
PAGE 22
16 with the following aspects of film study: 1. The importance of film in the modern world and the future of film study. 2. The social importance of film. 3. Recommended film study curricula. 4. Opposition to film study. The importance of film in the modern vmrld has been emphasized by some writers. For example, Stevens (1965), president of the American Film Institute, has said, "Time magazine was more than clever when it suggested that a modern man must be 'cinemate' as well as literate. For future generations, this will require hundreds of hours plus guidance and opportunity" (p. 70). If Time is right, there will be at least an equal need for cinema literacy as there is for verbal literacy. Lanier made a much more dramatic statement in 1968 about the importance of film education. Lanier said that "the primary art form used by art edu cators in 1978 will be film where the primary purpos e of much of this study and production will be to deal visually, dramatically, and artistically with social problems" (1968, p. 28). It is obvious that Lanier's enthusiasm for film study's position in education has not been realized to such a degree in 1977, but the growth of film study in education remains nonetheless dramatic. Arrowsmith (1969) made a more conservative and also more general statement when he said that film study "will challenge and eventually claim the place and prestige accorded to literature and the arts in the traditional curriculum" {p. 75). Sutton (1972) emphasized the increase of film study in higher education in future years:
PAGE 23
Rarely in the secondary school, but with increasing frequency at the junior college and college level, film will be taught fully and completely as an art form. Supported by extensive but carefully chosen screenings, the body of material that is film will be examined by students. They will grapple with film history, film aesthetics, and film criticism. These students will join their teachers in creating a critical body of writing and research that will support the development of film as a discipline of study in its own right. (p. 182) The soc i al importance of film has been one of the bases of some writers for the inclusion of film in the curriculum. According to Peters (1961), Hills has written, "Since it is socially important to reach al l the discriminating cinema-goers, film appreciation must cease 17 to be a wholly voluntary activity; it has to find its way into the school time-table" (p. 84). An important point here is that most movie-goers are relatively undiscriminating in what they see. They have a limited means of evaluation or discrimination because they have never been educated as to what is good or bad, what should or should not be done. In 1960, a Congress of the International Catholic Film Office in Vienna, according to Peters (1961), recommended that film education of the young is important in order to help their comprehension of filmic language and to take advantage of the educational, aesthetic and entertainment value of film (and the related medium of television), as well as to help students "react healthily" (p. 87} against the harmful effects of the sight and sound media. According to Peters (1961), Aibauer has written of the importance of film as a means of social study: "As an 'image of life' the film offers many examples for the study of social problems" (p. 85).
PAGE 24
Peters (1961) has written about the possibilities of film as general social education as well as the existence of film and television as a "second world" for students. Peters says: When we come to general social education, this is treated at the average school as being even less a separate "subject" than is aesthetic education. Social problems and social behaviour are topics which are (or may be) treated in lessons about geography, history, religion and "civics." Certainly, in the teaching of these subjects, it would often be worthwhile to point to practical subjects-without which all theoretical considerations must remain sterile--taken from films. The advantage of such examples lies in the fact that they belong to a "real" situation and that they are intensely experienced by the students themselves .... What th e young pupil has not expe rienced in his own environ ment and con sequentl y has not become acquainted with in reality, he may experience--with many variations--in the "second world" of the screen. (pp. 90-91) Peters also asserts that film and television are themselves important aspects of social life and belong to the subject matter to be treated as in "social studies." Similarly, Bukalski (1972) says that today there is an interplay betwee n society and the art of film. 18 In rec e nt year s there have been numerous sugge s tions concerning film programs and a numbe r of practical, recommende d curricula and specific film courses. For e xample, Richard Maynard (1971), in his book The Celluloid Curriculum, h a s recommended specific classroom units of study as presenting discussions on g e neral topics such as ''The Black Man in the Movies" and."The Western: A Mirror of Our Age?" Some specific units offered by Maynard d eal with using movies about the depression as historical sources, and includes such specifically named units as: "Marriage as an Institution--A Unit on Sex Education for Math, Science and English" classes and "Crime and Punishment: The Criminal, the Police and the System--A Unit on Film." Maynard's units for study on film seem to be geared
PAGE 25
toward second ary students only, but could be e asily ada pted for use on lower levels of education as well as colleg e instruction. Keisman (1972) has written of what he calls "an educator's dream--19 a student-oriented th e matic approach (p. 87) to film study which resulted from a class discussion group. The following problem areas were selected by the class for study: (a) nonconformity, (b) the judgement of society, (c) the role of the black man in a white society, (d) adolescent/adult relationships, (e) coping with failure, and (f) religious faith in a changing world. The "educator's dream," Keisma n indicates, is perfectly suited to film study because of the wealth of material available in films which deal with the spe cific problem areas. Ellis, Fischer, Knight, Gray, and Stoney, in Stewart's Film Study in Higher Education (1966), described film courses which were b e ing offered in in~titutions of higher education at th e tiwe. Respectively, the authors described the cont e nt of courses dealing with th e following: Modes of Film Communi c ation; Film Criticism; An Approac h to Film History; Film Aesthetics; Breaking th e Word Barrier. The latte r course v1as a general introductory f ilm course, while the oth e r courses d ealt with topics in a more specialized manne r or viith film in terms of one aspect of film study. Sheridan, Owen, Macrorie, and Marcus (1965 ) suggested the film classic Citizen Kane as a complete unit of study on m otion pictu res in the English program. They also presented The Grapes of Wrath as a good e xample of studying both version s of a motion picture w hich has been adapted from a novel. Both of the s e works, the authors indicate, offer students the chance to study a subject on film in literary terms as well as fi lmi c
PAGE 26
terms. Poteet (1968) has described a film study program for high school students which follows the suggestions of the spiral curriculum of Jerome Bruner. In Poteet's program, more advanced concepts of film were concentrated on each year. Opposition to Film Study There has also been much opposition to film study. As recently as 1969, Gollin summarized a somewhat popular view against film: "The view persists that movies belong in movie houses and late night television, films in art film houses, cinema in cinema societies, and none of these things in respectable college curricula" (p. 424). Kael (1966), the well known film critic for the New Yorker magazine, expressed an objection to film study in a description of her efforts at designing a film course: This was what I had gotten interested in movies to get away from ... I remembe red how my thumbnails g o t worn dovm from scraping the paint off my pencils as the teacher droned on about great literature. I remembered music appreciation with the record being played over and over, the needle arm going back and forth, and I remembered the slide m a chine in art history and the deadly rhythm of the instructor's tapper. And I knew that I could not present a course of study .... It goes against the grain of everything I feel about movies, and against the grain of just about everything I believe about how we learn in the arts. (pp. 127-12 8 ) 20 Stoney (1966) expressed similar doubts about film study in higher education in what m i ght be an appropriate summary statement for those who oppose film study in g e neral: "About teaching film in colleges I have this one great fear: that we will finally make it so acceptably academic that it would become as dull and dead as almost every other subject in the liberal arts curriculum" (p. 82).
PAGE 27
21 Literature on Film Evaluation The literature on film evaluation in education generally presents evaluation instruments or provides guidelines for motion picture education, appreciation, or appraisal. Film evaluation has been a concern of educators for many years, and much of the relevant literature on the subject was pre sented in the 19301s and 19401s. A possible r e ason for the heavy emphasis on film evaluation during that period of time was the fact that films were feared more and there was more of a need felt for censorship. Recent literature on film evaluation is scarce, and comprehensive film evaluation is almost nonexistent in education today. In an attempt to help students get more out of movies by understanding the various aspects, Dale (1933) provided a l1andbook of motion picture criticism titled How to 8~ciate Motion Pictures. Dealing with such aspects of film as the story, a cting, photography, settings, sound and music, direction, and the purpose of the motion pictures, the book is a good e xample of a guide to motion picture ~eciation and not evaluation. Eight standards are offered by Dale about the motion picture story, but specific guidelines for film evaluation are not provided. During the same decade, according to Rand and Lewis (19 37), Barnes offered eight general s tandards for a motion picture which might be used in developing evaluati ons of motion pictures. Barnes' standards include principles dealing with t h e structure and thematic elerPents of the motion picture, the story itself, nr~chanics and technical elements, and sens ational and emotional elements of the motion picture. More generally, Altschul, according to the Educational Film Library Association (1963), stated that film should be evaluated on the basis of how
PAGE 28
it can vwrk for an individual, not on the basis of whether it is a 11good or bad" (p. 22) film. He emphasized that the evaluation by itself should be an evaluation for a particular purpose, not for its own sake. 22 Along the same lines, Stevenson, as reported by the Educational Film Library Association (1963), said that the same thing should be asked of a film that is asked of a book when selecting films. Such things as the objective, the validity of the content and the usefulness to the potential audience should be considered, she said. Buchanan (1951) emphasized the patient development of a critical ap proach towards film within the next generation in order to enlighten humanity. He emphasized the understanding of production values in attaining this purpose. Weisenborn, as summarized by the Educational Film Library Association (1963), offered a very general statement about the effects of a film on the audience. A good film, \.Jeisenborn said, should make an audience "move" (p. 22), and he indicated that evaluators should take this into consideration. Lemler, according to the Educational Film Library Association (1963), dealt specifically with film and the curriculum by offering the following as criteria for film evaluation: "Does the film meet the needs of the curriculum? In meeting th o se needs, does it take advantage of the unique qualities found in the film m edium? How do children learn? Can they learn from the particular film in question'' (p. 29)? Lemler emphasized that, in evaluation, one must not sit in judgement. Specific methods of evaluation have been offered by various writers and groups of educators, in attempts to satisfy certain needs or provide general evaluation criteria for films. May and Lumsdaine (1958) and May and Howell (1958), respectively, present two major types of evaluation of instructional
PAGE 29
23 films: Objective tests and "Road testing." Evaluation by objective testing, May (1958, p. 245) maintains, is indispensible in expe rimental work, while evaluation by "road testing" is especially useful to persons who have the responsibility of selecting films for a school and assisting teachers in getting the maximum uses from them. Objective tests, May and Lumsdaine say, are generally believed to constitute the most efficient means of measuring factual information and under standing. Road testing was a method developed by Teaching Film Custodians and the Yale Motion Picture Research Project in an attempt to evaluate and develop study guides for excerpts from entertainment feature films. The criteria of selections from films were the potential values which teachers of all subjects and subject areas saw in them. A series of events are completed by various teachers in what is a fairly comprehensive evaluation pro cedure. The present study might be said to be an attempt to produce a much simpler, scaled-down version of road testing, one which can be performed by the individual teacher for his own specific purposes. One method used at the Workshop on Film Evaluation and Criticism of the Educational Film Library Association, as reported in Film Evaluation: Why and How (1963), was a panel evaluation. In this m eth o d, the panel discussed films seen, focusin g on the following question: Could this film be used for a number of purpose s ? Multipurpose use was d e termined to be an important consideration to a pur c h aser of films working with a limited budget. In addition to considering the potential of films in different classes, the panel considered the technical quality of the films. A variety of film evaluation instruments has been presented for use in education over the years. For example, Frutchey, as reported by Rand and
PAGE 30
24 Lewis (1937), offered a general rating scale in which students rank the movies they have seen by means of a O (worst I have eve r seen) to 9 (best I have ever seen) rating. This method is intended primarily as a means of determining the movies which students "like" the most. Frutch e y also offered a brief scale which could be used to compare motion pictures. Mullen (1934) offered a score sheet by which to evaluate individual motion pictures. This score sheet offered more actual "evaluation" criteria than the general and paired rating scales presented b y Frutchey. Under a heading of "My Score of a Moving Picture" (Mull en, 1934, p. 121), this score sheet provided the rater with the opportunity to evaluate a motion picture by assigning a score to specific criteria, such as Entertainment Value, Basic Theme and Social Value. The Bureau of Educational Research of Ohio State Univer sity, as reported by Rand and Lewis (1937), presented a rating scale similar to Mullen's score sheet titled the "Application of Standards" (p. 1 25). As the name might indicate, this scale d ealt with standards (social) or attitudes and historical and social facts as well as personal considerations such as enjoyment and evaluation of moral content of the films. At about the same time, Rand and Lewis (1937) report, the Film Survey Board offered a brief evaluation instrument dealing primarily with social and political considerations which are contained within a film. Called the ''Ballot of Associated Film l \ u d iences" (Rand and Lewis, 1937, p. 129), the instrument offered general conclusions dealing with entertainn1ent and educational values as well as recommenda tion s to friends and children under 16. Bell, Cain, Lamoreaux, and others (1941) report an unusual method of film evaluation which was used by the Santa Barbara, California, schools in the
PAGE 31
25 1930's and 19401s. The schools constructed the "Progressive Education Association's Scale of Beliefs" (Bell et al., 1941, p. 161) so that a shift in the direction of a higher score by students could be interpreted as a shift toward a more liberal attitude in regard to the following subjects: democracy; economic individualism; labor and unemployment; nationalism; race; and mil ita ri sm. A group of teachers led by Peterson and reported by Meierhenry (1952) developed two types of evaluation devices for the United Nations phase of the Nebraska Film Program in 1948. In addition to constructing a factual test, the group developed an opinion-type belief scale which dealt with social issues concerning the United Nations. The scales were designed to measure the effectiveness of specific motion pictures which were to be used in the program. Criteria were established for the construction of test items, and the tests were administered experimentally to arrive at their final versions. Devereux (1935) presented a rather comprehensive instrument for evaluation of educational motion pictures, titled "A Checklist for Evaluating Educational Talking Pictures'' (p. 204). The checklist includes a numerical rating of items which fall under the following headings: (1) Objectives of the Picture, (2) Content of the Picture, (3) Development of Content, (4) Technical Audio-Visual Elements, (5) Contribution to Other Curriculum Materials and (6) Overview of General Eff~ctiveness. One producer of educational films in the 19301s, according to Brunstetter (1935), used an appraisal form which not only evaluated the finished product but also guided the various steps of production of films. Included in the form were selections in which to appraise the film's contributions to other curriculum materials (the same and related fields) and to its artistic as well as educational values.
PAGE 32
26 Stinson, as reported by Amelio (1970), developed a "Film Evaluation Sheet" (p. 154) which deals with films in a very simple and general manner. Stinson's instrument includes comments or ratings on the following: General Reaction; Creativeness; Clarity of Purpose; The Film's Suiting to the Medium; Technical Qualities; and Emotional Reaction. Peters (1961) says that the "critical viewing" (p. 56) could be used in describing the process of comparing a person's own life and values with those which are offered for examination in the films he sees. Peters also offers a "Scheme for the Critical Evaluation of Film Content" (1961, p. 56) which is the most comprehensive evaluative device for entertainment or non-instructional films. The 11scheme11 offered by Peters is a list of questions which fall under the following general categories: environment, situation, and course of action; the characters (appearance, character, social status, attitudes toward the outer world, and motivations); tendency of the film and ideas of the pro ducer as well as of the main characters. The device offered by Peters deals with some of the questions proposed in the present study but does not cover the four bases of the curriculum and does not offer specific evaluative criteria for rating the films. None of the literature reviewed offered an instrument or other evaluative device complete enough to eliminate the need for the present study. While a number of s~ggestions of the writers and specific and general parts of evaluative instruments within the literature served as models or guidelines for the sample instrument offered by the investigator at the beginning of this study, the final instrument offered for analysis has been developed from the combination of factors comprising the study itself.
PAGE 33
27 Related Literature on Film in Education The literature on film in education which neither falls under the headings of film study nor film evaluation is vast, and is usually fairly general in nature. Hence a brief and highly selective review is presented in this section. The use of films in connection with other subjects is an important consideration in education in general and in relation to this study in particular. For example, Peters (1961) says that film can be a valuable aid in teach ing subjects other than film, particularly the teaching of language, general aesthetic education and general social education. Verbal language and exercises in teaching verb tenses is especially relevant in connection with film teaching, Peters says. He also says that film aesthetics seems to coincide directly with general aesthetics education because of the artistic nature of film itself. And finally, the critical assimilation of films is important in general social education because the film presents a "real" situation on screen, a "reflection" of social life, and because film itself is an important aspect of social life. According to Peters (1961), Haase has made a more specific statement about the value of film in connection with literature and language. Language skill and literary taste, he says, can be favorably influenced by education in film language and film art. Gollin (1969) says that some films can be studied as dramatic literature, particularly in filr.,s adapted from stage plays, partly because the two genres are enough related to avoid flagrant violations of the genius of each. Gollin also says that films may be used as an adjunct to literature courses by way of film adaptations of novels, as well as social history. In showing films for
PAGE 34
28 history purposes, the studio's researches into such things as cl .othes and furniture of certain periods often provide easy references for students and faculty. Stern (1968) has said that "all of the forms of 'vltriting--exposition, literary criticism, narration, dialogue, description, even poetry--can be found in parallels in film and provide stimulation for a composition program" (p. 646). The same questions, Stern says, can be asked of films which are asked of books. Bukalski (1972) has written against a literary approach to film study. The literary approach, Bukalski says, "totally neglects the experiential aspects of film" (1972, p. 5), by stopping, reviewing, and searching for meanings in a temporal art which "must make its real impact in a limited period of time" (1972, p. 5). The film must be first viewed in its entirety as a film before the critical process is allowed to begin. Sheridan, Owen, Macrorie, and Marcus (1965) share Bukalski's view on the appraisal of films, in this case literary adaptations. Sheridan and his colleagues offered The Grapes of Wrath as a unit of film study for English classes. In a film adaptation of a novel such as this, the authors contend, there must not only be thematic similarities, but the film content must be assessed within the form of the film itself. In examining films pedagogically, Peters (1961) says, "The discussion of films is valuable from a pedagogical point of view, particularly because judgements and opinion s \ vhich have been formed in that sphere of the mind where the processes of appreciation and assimilation happen automatically, are now subjected to rational examination" (p. 64). Bukalski (1972) emphasizes the tremendous interest today in the interplay
PAGE 35
between society and the art of film. Most scientific studies of film, he says, are simply too narrow in scope to offer any extensive insights into the nature of film. 29 Peters (1961) makes a similar statement about films and other aspects of the society. "As a rule," Peters says "the characteristics of the art of film may be best appreciated by comparing it with other forms of art" (p. 90). The use of films, according to one study, goes hand in hand with other positive teacher behaviors. May and Nerden (1958), in a study of factors related to the use of motion pictures, found that the teacher's conception of the job, interest in pupils and seeing them grow and the desire to keep up with the times professionally are related to the extent to which films will be used. Literature on Instrument Development A large number of studies have dealt with th e development of measurement instruments for various purposes. The studies reviewed in this section have been sel e cted primarily because of the methods involved in instrument development. Williams (1948 ) developed a questionnaire intended to evaluate policies and standards for student health services. After the construction of a pre liminary instrument. authorities evaluated the instrument be use of a rating scale in order to a i d Williams in arriving a t the final instrument. Ulibarri (1960) developed a questionnaire designed to measure the extent to which teachers were aware of sociocultural factors that influence the edu cation of minority group children. The emphasis was on Anglo, Spanish-American and Indian children. The questionnaire considered the psychological needs of
PAGE 36
children, cultural orientations as they affected children's classroom be havior, social conditions among the three groups and educational problems pertinent to the three groups. 30 Landers (1945) constructed a questionnaire to aid in evaluating public school programs for handicapped children. A preliminary instrument was de veloped and submitted to thirty authorities in the field for suggestions for improvement. The final instrument was developed from these suggestions and presented in a score card form. Anderson (1960) developed an instrument which could be used by school administrators in measuring community attitudes and prejudices. Anderson's final instrument was a questionnaire consisting of ten distinct areas of attitudes and prejudice. An emphasis of Anderson was the curricular validity of the instrument. The same year, Kirk (1960) developed a rating scale for evaluating college and university health service programs. Kirk developed a preliminary instrument composed of 291 standards and presented it to a jury of 60 health service directors. From the ratings, the final instrument was constructed and pre sented for use. Kirk's instrument is closer to the instrum ent proposed in the present study, in m e thod and procedures followed, than any other instrument development study found in the literature. The most recen t study dealing with instrument development is the development by Brown (1973) of a sickle cell anemia awareness instrument. Although not involved in any type of evaluation, Brown's study was similar in method and procedure to the studies by Landers and Anderson.
PAGE 37
CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY Design A formative evaluation design was used in this study. Basically, the major phases of this design included: initial development of the instrument; pilot-testing; instrument revision; field-testing; and analysis of the field-test results. Procedures Followed in the Study Steps Invo 1 ved in the StL!ii The fo 11 owing steps were fo 11 owed in the study: 1. A pilot test of the preliminary instrument was conducted with ten high school and community college teachers. From this pilot t est the instrument was revisec for the field-testing portion of the study. 2. Evaluators who participated in the study were chosen from selected high school and comm unity college teaching fields. 3. Each teacher evaluated an entertainment film which he had seen fairly rece~tly. The film evaluation by each teacher was used merely to familiarize him with the instrument, and the results of the film evaluations had no bearing on the results of the study itself. In addition to evaluating each item, the evaluators were asked to recommend a minimum total score (on a scale of 100, for example) for the questions closely related to the teachers' own subject area(s) for the film to be useful. 31
PAGE 38
32 4. After using the preliminary instrument, the instructors evaluated each item on the instrument according to the scale provided. The scale used to eval uate instrument items consisted of numerical ratings from one to five, with one representing an "unacceptable" or "highly inappropriate" item for inclusion in the instrument and five representing an "essential" item. Individual written comments were encouraged. The instructors were asked to recommend a minimum average score for the inclusion of each question in the final instrument. 5. After evaluation of the film and evaluation of the preliminary instrument, interviews were conducted with selected evaluators by the investigator. The interviews specifically solicited constructive comments about the overall instrument and individual items on the instrument. 6. Data were collected and analyzed, using a principal axis factor analysis. 7. From the analysis of the ratings and individual comments, the instrument was revise d ~The final i nstrument was offered for use in evaluating films for high school and comm unity college teaching. Instrumentation The instrument s Two instruments were used in this study. In addition to the proposed film evaluation instrument itself, a secondary instrument was used to eval uate and revise each item on the proposed instrument. Both instruments used were numerical rating scales. Justification f or the use of a rating scale consists of several reasons which Guilford, according to Kerlinger (1964), regards as valuable: "They require less time than other methods; they are generally interesting and easy for observers to use; they have a very wide range of application; they can be
PAGE 39
used with a large number of characteristics11 (pp. 517-518). Numerical rating scales are used bec~use, as Guilford suggests, they yield numbers which can be directly used in statistical analysis. They are also con sidered to be the easiest to construct and use. 3 3 One of the primary goals of this study was the development of an instrument which is easy to use. Hence the evaluation instrument and the secondary instrument were kept as simple as possible in order to keep con fusion at a minimum and clarity and direction of purpose at a maximum. Considering this, the following criteria for the construction of items were followed: 1. Each item was constructed in order to elicit an evaluation of the film in terms of potential use in teaching and overall educational value. 2. Each item could be classified into one of the six specific categories of the instrument or justified by fitting it into the general category. 3. Items were intended to be specific enough to help the instructor determine the film's usefulness in his courses but general enough to cover different subject areas without asking numerous questions. The major evaluation instrument in this study is composed of a numerical rating seal~ of one to five. A rating was assigned to each question on the proposed film evaluation instrument as to the question's quality and worth in film evaluation according to the categories presented. A simple verbal description accompanies each numerical value. For example, a rating of one represents an evaluation of an item as "unacceptable11 or 11highly inappropriate11 while a rating of five represents an evaluation of an item as 11essential11 to
PAGE 40
34 the proposed film e v aluation instrument. This evaluation instrument is presented as Appendix 8. It is for this instrument that data were gathered and reported. The original film evaluation instrument consists of questions divided into the following seven categories: Social Forces; Human Development; Knowledge; Learning; Entertainment; Art; General. Following is a sample item from each of the seven categories: 1. Social Forces--item 1--"To what extent does the film d eal with a social problem?" 2. Human Development--item 25--"To what extent does the film deal with human beings at certain stages of life?" 3. Learning--i tern 46--"To what extent does the film deal with the outcomes of learning?" 4. Knowledge--item 47--"To what extent does the film present information which might contribute to your course?" 5. Entertai nmrnt--item 59--"To what extent is the film entertaining?" 6. Art--item 55--"To what extent did the film provide an aesthetic experi ~nee for you?11 7. General--item 60-11To what extent does the film deal with a problem or convey a situation in a realistic manner?" The evaluators were a sked to assign a value from one to five to each question on the instrument. A detaile d verbal description of each of the assigned numerical values used accompanied the numerical scale. For example, a rating of one for an item was accompanied by the following verbal description: "Not at all. Does not deal with this consideration. Contains no information or reference concerning this consideration." A rating of five was accompanied
PAGE 41
35 by the following verbal description: "To a great extent. This consideration is a major part of the story. The main character or characters are involved in this consideration." The preliminary instrument in the pilot study is pre sented as Appendix C. Selection of evaluators. Ten community college and high school teachers, administrators, and support personnel who deal with the instructional program served as evaluators in the pilot study of the instrument. Names of potential evaluators were acquired at random by using college catalogs and school lists of personnel. Educators from Tennessee, Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina served as evaluators in the field test. Both personal contact and mail requests were made in the selection of evaluators, and all evaluators followed a standardized instruction sheet provided by the investigator, which can be found as Appendix D. Personal requests were made by individual contact or with small groups of teachers. Mail requests were made using a standard letter which was personalized for each person according to subject area, school, and similar considerations. All evaluators participated in the study voluntarily. A total of 308 requests were made by the investigator. 172 personal requests were made, with 124, or 72% returning the instrument. Of 136 mail requests, 68, or 50%, were returned for inclusion in the study. Of the original number of 192 evaluators, 168 were used in the final data analysis of the study. The remaining 24 responses were eliminated for various practical reasons, the major reasons being incomplete responses or apparent misunderst a nding of the intent of the study. Most of the responses eliminated came from participants solicited by mail. Following are the numbers of evaluators from each subject area: Social Sciences I--21; Social Sciences 11--13; Physical Sciences--16; Biological Sciences--16; Humanities--41; Communication--38; Education--16; Business-Economics--?.
PAGE 42
36 Justification for instructor evaluation of the instrument is one of practical intent. Since instructors themselves v :ill b e using the instrument in their own teaching, it seems reasonable that they can best evaluate the instrument itself in attempting to perfect it for classroom use. Training of evaluators. Since the proposed instrument did not require any training for its use by instructors, the instructors serving as evaluators received onlj the detailed instruction sheet and either a detailed personal letter or personal contact by the investigator in which a thorough explanation of the study was made. Included in the letter or conversation was a brief ex planation of the four bases of curriculum and instruction as outlined by Hass, Bondi and Wiles (1974). Instrument validity. Several procedures were used to build in content validity of the film evaluation instrument: In order to help validate the content of the instrument, mean ratings of each item by the evaluators were computed before the preliminary instrument was revised. Items were eliminated on the basis of low ratings as well as apparent duplication upon further examination of all items. During content validation a standardized instruction sheet was given to all evaluators in order to assure understanding of their roles in the study. The responses of evaluators who did not complete the instrument properly were eliminated from the fi na 1 re _su 1 ts of the study. Construct validity of the instrument was investigated using factor analysis. A factor analysis of the results of the study was performed in order to obtain a simpler structure for instrument items. The factor analysis provided an objective mathematical basis for instrument revision and was used along with the mean ratings of the evaluators. The two primary means of instrument validation, the factor analysis and
PAGE 43
37 the use of Hass et al. 's (1974) four bases of curriculum and instruction, pro vided different bases for developing a film evaluation instrument. The factor analysis showed what dimensions experts used to evaluate item quality on the instrument, while the categories suggested by Hass et al. provided a structure for items that may be useful to teachers in evaluating films. Reliabilit1_. Internal consistency of the instrument was determined by a two-way analysis of variance as recommended by Kerlinger (1964).
PAGE 44
CHAPTER IV PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA Results of the Pilot Study A pilot study was conducted in order to refine the preliminary instrument for the final study. Ten high school and community college teachers evaluated the preliminary film evaluation instrument. One teacher's responses were eliminated because he indicated after completion of the evaluation that he did not perform the task seriously. Of the nine teachers whose evaluations comprised the pilot study results, eight were community college teachers and one was a high school teacher. The pilot study and further consideration by the investigator resulted in elimination of ten items from the 70-item preliminary instrument, as well as one of the six open-ended questions. In eliminating items, the investigator used the mean figure which respondents recommended as a minimum average score for inclusion of items in the final instrument, as well as re-examination of each item as it related to the ~verall instrument and the intentions of the study. The mean recommended minimum average score was 2.89. Items n~mber 16, 29, 44, 59 and 69 were eliminated due to a low score, while the five remaining items were eliniinated for other reasons. Items number l f and 19 scored exactly the n~an--2.89--but were generally regarded by the respondents and the investigator as unnecessary questions in arriving at a comprehensive film evaluation instrument. 38
PAGE 45
39 Item number 1 2 rece iv e d a mean score of 3 .00 b u t was considered too general to be included in th e final instrument. Q uestion numbe r 17, which also received a mean score of 3.00, was considered ade quate in covering the question of education in the evaluation of films. Item number 36 received a mean score of 3.00 but was eliminated because it was too specific for the film evaluation instrument of this study. Item number 38, which received a high score of 3.8 9, was eliminated because its content was redundant with item numbe r 25. A total of 25 items received mean ratings of 4.00 or better, with items number 41 and 48 receiving the highest score, 4.7 8 Five items received a score of 4.56 while two items received a score of 4.44. Three items scored 4.33. In the open-ended section of the instrum e nt, four of the nine respondents indicated that they would use a modified version of the preliminary instrument, and four said they would not use it. One r e spondent offered a "don't know" answer to the question. Number thre e of the open-ended section was elimin a ted because a total wei ghted score was considered to be useless in dealin g with film evaluation in individual subje c t a reas. Mean ratings for the 6 0 items in the pilot study which were in c luded in the second version of the instrum e nt are reported in Table 1, and mean ratings for the 10 items eliminated after the pilot study and responses to th e open-ended questions are reported in Table 2 and Table 3, respectively. Results of the Field Test Item Ratings Data obtained in the field test consisted of 168 evaluators' ratings
PAGE 46
40 Table 1 M e a n Ratings of Instrum e n t I t e m s In the Pilot Study and Means and Standard Deviations in the Fin a l Stud y Item Mean, Mean, Std Dev, Item Mean, Mean, Std Dev, Item Mean, Mean, Std Dev, Pi St Fi St Fi St Pi St Fi St Fi St Pi St Fi St Fi St l. 4. 11 4. 10 .99 8 21. 3.7 8 3 .26 l. 153 41. 4.3 3 4 .31 1.038 2 3.89 3.39 1.204 22. 3.56 3. 17 l. 136 42. 4.33 3 .88 1.077 3. 3.78 3.29 l. 225 23. 3.44 3.32 l .067 43. 3.89 3.60 l. 143 4. 4.11 3.63 l. 157 24. 3.22 2.79 l. 209 44. 3.7 8 3. 17 1. 197 5. 4.56 3.95 1. 157 25. 3.33 3.44 1.265 45. 3.56 3 .05 1. 162 6. 4.11 3. 8 2 l .076 26. 3.11 3 .18 l 134 46. 4 .22 3.38 l. 141 7. 4.22 3.76 l. 0 9 0 27. 3.33 3.26 l 159 47. 4.44 4.43 .907 8. 3.67 3.65 l. 174 2 8 3.44 3. 19 l 163 48. 4.00 3.79 1.066 9. 3.78 3.25 1. 217 29. 3.33 3.24 l 154 49. 4 .44 4. 17 .954 10. 3.22 3. 2 9 1.220 30. 4.33 3.85 l 151 50. 3.22 3.27 l. 284 11. 3.11 3 .01 1. 1 4 0 31. 3.33 3.01 l. 221 51. 4.22 4.03 1. 041 12. 4.11 3 .8 0 .982 32. 3.89 3.71 1. 074 52. 3 .67 3.54 l. 340 13. 3.11 3. 0 9 l. 1 5 2 33. 4.11 3.42 l 206 53. 3.44 2.90 l. 330 14. 3.56 3.29 l. 079 34. 4.78 4 .20 l 130 5 4 3.2 2 2.83 1. 219 15. 3.00 3. 14 1. 230 35. 3.22 3.27 l. 278 55. 4.56 3.64 1 175 16. 3.22 3.. 14 l. 1 2 6 36. 4. 11 3.66 1 071 56. 4.56 3.60 1.277 17. 4.00 3.69 1 168 37. 3.78 3 .70 l. 288 5 7. 4.33 3. 8 2 1. 205 18. 3.56 3.07 l ( '12 3 8 3.11 3. 1 3 l 221 5 8 4.56 4.18 l. 011 19. 3.56 3.29 1. 010 39. 3.33 3.11 1. 124 59. 4.56 3.99 1.069 20. 3.89 3.36 l. 074 40. 4.78 4.24 1 .010 60. 4.22 4. 17 1. 114
PAGE 47
Item 12. 16. 18. 19. Mean 3.00 2.56 2.89 2.89 Item l. Table 2 Mean Ratings of Eliminated Items In the Pilot Study Item Mean Item 29. 2.78 59. 36. 3.00 69. 38. 3.89 44. 2.44 Table 3 Evaluator Responses to Open-Ended Items In the Pilot Study Results Yes--5 No--4 ( l ) 4 (2) 0 Item 4. 5. 2. 69.37 3. Social Forces 15.00 % Human Development 16.11 % Learnin g 14.44 % Knowledge 14.44 % Entertain ment 15.56 % Art 16.11 % General 8.22 % Mean 2.67 2.56 Results 2.89 Yes--4 No--4 Don't Know--1 41
PAGE 48
of the 60 items remaining after the pilot study revision, plus five open e nded items. As can be seen in Table l, items scoring high in the pilot study generally received high ratings in the fiel d test. 42 Nine items received mean ratings of 4.00 or better, with 28 items recei ving ratings of 3.50 or higher. Item 47 rece ived the highest score with a mean rating of 4.43. Only three items received mean ratings of under 3.00, while 45 items, or 75% of the total, received scores equal to or greater than the recommended minimum mean of instructors of 3.18. The mean recommended score on the items related to the instructors' subject areas for the film to be useful was 76.90. An interesting statistic is that 111, or 66% of the teachers involved in the data analysis, indicated that they would use a modified version of the preliminary instrument. Fifty-three teachers, or 31% said they would not use it, while four created their own answer with a "don't know" response. Instrument Reliability The internal consistency of the instrument was determined by a two-way analysis of variance as recommended by Kerlinger (1964), in which between items variance, between-individuals variance and residual or error variance is measured in estimating total instrument reliability. The analysis of variance table is presented in Table 4. Following is the formula as presented by Kerlinger for reliability estimation: where r = l -tt V e V ind
PAGE 49
r = reliability coefficient, tt V = error or residual variance, which corresponds to e ms residual in the analysis of variance table, V = variance between individuals, which corresponds ind to the ms for individuals in the analysis of variance table. (pp. 434-436) 43 Using this formula, a reliability coefficient of .984 was obtained for the film evaluation instrument. Table 4 Analysis of Variance Data Source df ss ms Items 59 8727 148 Individuals 167 8703 52.1 Residual 9853 3287 .334 Factor Analysis In an attempt to obtain a simpler, more basic structure to the film evaluation instrume nt, a factor analysis of the data was performed. The initial factor methcd, run on an SAS (Statistical Analysis System) program, was the principal axis solution. Twelve major factors were identified in the initial factor ~attern. The amount of total variance explained by the principal axis solution was 83%. The factor analysis was run again, rotating 12 factors to varimax criterion, which places emphasis on simplification of the factors in the
PAGE 50
44 factor matrix. The varimax method, according to Williams (1968), attempts to mathematically objectify the criterion of simple structure. The rotation indicated clearer relationships among some variables and factors but did not offer a completely clear solution for instrument revision. As an aid to interpretation, the factors were also graphically plotted with each other. The per cent of common variance explained by each factor was calculated and aided in determining which factors should be retained in revising the instrument to its final form. Table 5 indicates the per cent of common var ian~e explained by each factor and the number of items loading greater than +.50 on each factor, and Appendix G contains factor loadings for all items in the field test. Table 6 contains the loadings of items on respective factors. Nine of the 12 factors retained for rotation accounted for enough of the corrrnon variance to be considered significant. Factors 7, 11 and 12 accounted for low percentages o f the variance, with 2.6 % 3.7 % and 3.1 % respectively, and thus were eliminated from serious consideration in the revision of the instrument. Factor 6, which accounted for 4.8 % of the common variance, was retained for further consideration during the final instrument revision. The other eight factors accounted for amounts of common variance ranging from 5.2% to 22.9 % Factor l accounted for 22.9 % of the common variance. Because most of the items with significa nt factor loadings on factor l deal with such things, factor l has been labeled Social Institutions, Conventions. From an original number of 17 items with factor loadings of +.50 or higher, eight items from factor 1 have been retained for the final instrument. Items 16, 18, 21, 22 and 31 were eliminated because they seemed to be covered by items retained in the instrument. Items 16, 18 and 21, for example, deal vlith "established institutions," while
PAGE 51
45 Table 5 Factor Labels and Common Variance Explained for Each Factor % Com. Cum. % # Items Loading Factor Factor Label Var. Exp. Var. +.50 or Higher l Social Institutions, Conv. 22.9 22.9 17 2 Education, Learning 14.6 37.5 9 3 Significant lnformati on 8. l 45.6 5 4 Aesthetics 7.0 5 2.6 2 5 Values, Pressures 10. 7 63.3 4 6 Communication 4.8 6 8 1 4 7 2.6 70.7 0 8 Adaptation 5.7 76.4 2 9 Choices 5.2 8 1.6 1 10 Development 9.4 91.0 3 11 3.7 94.7 0 12 3. l 97.8 0
PAGE 52
46 Table 6 Items Loading +.50 or Higher on Respective Factors Item Item Content Loading Item Item Content Loading Factor l Factor 5 2 estab. institutions .63 3 envtal. prob. .61 9 economics 76 5 morality .62 14 illness or death .58 6 human rights .73 16 mass media .76 12 social, cult. pres .76 18 government 88 19 law, enforcement .91 Factor 6 20 religion .78 21 politics .75 57 story line .78 22 war or peace .76 58 communication .58 26 children .54 59 entertainment 72 27 young adults .54 60 realism 81 28 middle-aged people .53 29 elderly people .82 Factor 8 31 citizenship .74 32 cooperation .63 24 geography .56 33 love .52 53 adaptation .80 Factor 2 Factor 9 10 the future .53 34 choices .74 15 educational prob. .76 38 gen. process learn. .79 Factor 10 39 ind. learning .89 42 problem solving .57 25 stages of life .79 43 diff. ways learn. 71 35 physical matur. .80 44 origin of ideas 81 37 emotional growth .70 45 group learning .78 46 outcomes of learn. .63 Factor 3 13 sci~ntific rrobs .66 47 info for your cours .. 51 49 info transferred' .62 50 scientific info 77 52 terms in part. area .77 Factor 4 55 aesth. exp. you .87 56 aesth. exp. stus. .89
PAGE 53
institutions," while item 2, dealing with established institutions, has been retained. 47 Factor 2 accounted for 14.6 % of the common variance explained and has been assigned a label of Education or Learning. Of the nine items receiving high factor loadings upon rotation, seven have bee n retained in the final instrument. Two items, 43 and 45, were considered unnecessary or redundant and were eliminated from the instrument. Item 10, which deals with the future, did not seem to fit into factor 2, but received a high factor loading and has been retained in the final instrument as a legitimate film evaluation item. Factor 3, which accounted for 8.1% of the common variance explained, has been labeled Significant Information because the four items in factor 3 retained for the fina l instrument deal with information which might help students in the instructors' particular courses. Item 47, with a factor loading of +.51, received th e highest teacher rating of all 60 items with a mean of 4. 43. Items 50 and 5 2 di ct not receiv e exceptional ratings but contained very high loadings on fa c t o r 3 and item 49 received a high factor loading as well as a very high mean rating of 4.17. Item 13 \vas eliminated because of redun dancy. Factor 4, which accounted for 7.0 % of the common variance explained, was easy to interpret and lab el as Aesthetics. Only two variables had high loadings on factor 4, and both variables dealt with aesth etics. Items 55 and 56, with factor loadings of +.8 7 and +.89, respectively, and with similar mean ratings, 3.64 for 55 and 3.6 ~ for 56, were both retained in the final instrument. Factor 5 accounted for a fairly large portion of the common variance with 10.7 % It has been labeled Values, Pressur e s because the three items retained in the final instrument deal with one of these two related considerations.
PAGE 54
48 Factor 6 accounted for only 4.8 % of the common variance but was retained because the investigator felt the four items with high factor loadings on factor 6 were important in film evaluation. All four items, 57-60, received high mean ratings by the evaluators, and factor 6 has been assigned the label of Communication. Factor 8 accounted for 5.7 % of the common variance but contained only two items with significant factor loadings. One of the two items, 24, was eliminated from the final instrument upon further examination. Factor 8 was labeled Adaptation on the basis of the remaining item, 53, which dealt with the adaptation of fiction or drama for the screen. Factor 9, labeled Choices, accounted for 5.2 % of the common variance although it contained only one item with a significant factor loading. Item 34, dealing with making choices and the consequences which come from the choices, contained a very high loading of +.74 on factor 9 and served as the basis for labeling. Factor 10 accounted for 9.4 % of the conunon variance and was assigned a label of Development. The three items with high loadings on factor 10, items 25, 35 and 37, dealt with human development in some way. Items l and 11, dealing with a social problem and the past, respectively, were retained in the final instrument despite the fact that neither received a loading of +.50 or higher on any factor. Item 1 seems to fit well into the structure of factor l and received a loading of +.47 on factor 1. Item 11 does not seem to fit into the structure of any factor with the exception of factor 2, but received an extremely low loading on factor 2. Both items were believed by the investigator to contain important considerations in evaluating films for teaching. As indicated earlier, the factor analysis helped somewhat in determining
PAGE 55
49 what items might be eliminated on the basis of their belonging to clusters or groups of similar items. In that respect, the factor analysis was useful in making the instrument more economical to use as well as strengthening the instrument validity. The labels assigned to the nine factors are arbitrary names and are strictly the choices of the investigator after careful examination of the data. Using a cut-off point of +.50 as a significant factor loading helped to provide guidelines for the elimination of instrument items, but the factor analysis did not provide explicit, clear-cut points for instrument revision in every instance. This could have been a function of the small sample size of 168 evaluators and the relatively large number of 60 items. It may also be partially attributed to the rotation of 12 factors. Rotation of 10 factors might have yielded a more interpretable solution. The Fina 1 Instrument The final instrument is a shorter version of the preliminary instrument obtained after the pilot study. Of the 60 items included in the field test, 25 have been eliminated, leaving an instrument of 35 items. While the factor analysis was the primary means of eliminating items, the instructors' ratings of items and the investigator's own analysis contributed to the shape of the final instrument. The final instrument has retained the original structure derived by the investigator. Hass, Bondi and Wiles' (1974) four bases of curriculum and instruction still comprise the niajor elements of structure, but the Art, Entertainment and General categories have been changed. Items formerly numbered 55 and 56 now fall under the category called Aesthetics, and the remaining items, formerly 57-60, have been combined under the heading of Communication.
PAGE 56
50 The changes were suggested by the factor analysis. The four bases of cur riculum and instruction of Hass et al. have been retained because they seem to offer a simpler visual structure, as well as a more logical one, to the average teacher who might use the instrument, and as mentioned earlier, they provide a strong case for content validity of the instrument. The numbers of items in each of the remaining six instrument categories are: Social Forces--13; Human Development--6; Learning--5; Knowledge--5; Aesthetics--2; Communication--4. Film score. Since the instrument does not contain right-or-wrong items, a standardized score cannot be obtained. Rather, the instrument's potential use is based on a teacher's own evaluations of film content in a way which might be beneficial to that particular teacher. Thus, the investigator believes the instrument would work best if each teacher planning to use it would familiarize himself well with it and use the instrument primarily as a recording device in noting in what areas films score high or low. For those teachers wishing to obtain scores according to their own standards, however, items have been somewhat arbitrarily assigned to the eight curriculum categories or subject-related areas from which evaluators were chosen, plus a general category. As can be seen in Appendix H, some items appear in more than one of the categories. Two items, 25 and 28, were assigned to.all categories because of their possible application to all of them. A highest possible score, based on the number of items multiplied by the maximum score or five, is also reported.
PAGE 57
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION Summary The purpose of this study was the development of a comprehensive film evaluation instrument which might be used by high school and community college teachers in selecting entertainment films for classroom use. Justification for the study dealt primarily with the recognition of film as a medium of communication and education, and the lack of truly conclusive evaluative materials which assist teachers in judging the worth of films as educational materials. Guiding concepts in developing the items on this instrument were the four bases of curriculum and instruction as identified by Hass, Bondi and Wiles (1974): Social Forces; Human Developn~nt; Learning; and Knowledge. The reasoning was given that these four concepts might serve well in the planning of film usage, if they can be considered bases of curriculum planning in general. A review of literature was completed on the following areas: Literature on Film Education and Film Study; Literature on Film Evaluation; Related Literature on Film in Education; and Literature on Instrument Development. Generally, the literature review served to support the need for the study as well as providing ideas and guidelines in planning th e rreliminary instrument. Limitations of the study dealt primarily with the purpose and scope of the study itself. Major limitations of the study were as follows: 51
PAGE 58
52 The study dealt only with film usage in the first year of high school through the second year of college. The study dealt with motion picture evaluation and not motion picture appreciation or criticism. The instrument itself dealt almost entirely vvith film content as op posed to art or form. The study was not concerned with the assessn~nt of factual information contained in the films, but was designed to judge film content as it relates to individual teaching. The results of the study may have been biased by the use of both mail and personal requests in obtaining instrument evaluators. A preliminary instrument of 70 items and six open-ended questions was designed and offered to evaluators in a pilot study. The instrument was structured around H ass et al.s four bases of curriculum and instruction and additional categorie s of Art, Entertainment and General. Subjects in the rilot study were 10 high school and community college teachers who 11sed the instrument to evaluate a film and who evaluated the importance of each item on a scale of one to five. From the pilot study, ten items and one open-ended question were eliminated from the instrument. Evaluators in the field test were 168 high school and corr, munity college teachers and. other educators from Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, and Ten nessee. Teachers who served comprised eight different academic areas identified by the investigato r prior to the execution of the study. A total of 308 evaluators were invite d to participate, with 192 evaluators returning responses. In addition to a letter or personal contact explaining the study, a detailed instruction sheet was provided for all evaluators. From the 192 responses obtained, 24 w e re eliminated from the final data analysis, primarily because of
PAGE 59
53 incomplete instrument responses or obvious misunderstanding of the intent of the study. Thus a total of 168 evaluators' responses were used in the validation study. Interviews were conducted with selected respondents, specifically soliciting constructive comn1ents about the overall instrument and individual items on the instrument. Instrument reliability was determined by a two-way analysis of variance as recommended by Kerlinger (1964), and was estimated to be .984. In order to obtain a more basic structure to the instrument, a factor analysis of the data was run. The initial factor method was the principal axis solution, which identified 12 major factors. The amount of total variance explained by the principal axis solution was 83% The factor analysis was run again, rotating 12 factors to varimax criterion, with nine factors retained in the final instrument revision. Labels were assigned to the nine factors. Overall, the factor analysis, along with the analysis of mean ratings by the evaluators, resulted in the elimination of 25 items, leaving a final instrument of 35 items. Instrument structure remained essentially the same, with the four bases of curriculum and instruction serving as categories in the instrument. The categories of Art, Entertainment and General were consolidated into new categories of Aesthetics and Communication. The major conclusion obtained in this study is that the instrument might be useful to. teachers in evaluating films, but further refinement and development needs to be dare in order to assure that the instrument is useable for purposes other than experin~ntal purposes. Discussion While a lack of interest in fi.lm evaluation among educators was noted
PAGE 60
54 in conducting this study, the investigator was, overall, very pleased with the response from those educators who were solicited as participants. Par t icularly pleasihg were the positive responses from individuals in various subject areas of education. Some of the nmst positive responses, for example, came from teachers in subject areas such as biolo g y, mathematics and police science. More helpful suggestions and comments, as well as really close ex aminations of wording and redundancy, seemed to come from mathematics teachers than teachers from any other subject area. The following methodological limitations of this study suggest areas for future research: 1. The inter-rater reliability of the instrument has not been determined. 2. The results of the factor analysis must be regarded as tentative or exploratory due to the relatively small sample size of 168 subjects and fairly large number of 60 items. Also, rotation of a different number of factors could have changed the results somewhat. 3. The use of different procedures in obtaining responses from evaluators and the return rates of 50% and 72% respectively, for mail and person a l responses, may have biased results. 4. The evaluation of different films by the evaluators as practice in using the instrument might have created a problem in that evaluators did not all have the same frame of reference in evaluating the instrument itself. The following general statements can be made concerning this study and film evaluation in general: 1. There seems to be an inverse relationship in the increased use of
PAGE 61
55 films in classroo111s and the decreased u s e of critical awareness of what the films really say or how they affect students. Whil the investigator had a lot of help and cooperation from the many teachers who participated in the study, there is still a widespread lack of interest in objective evaluation measures for films. While the reasons for such disinterest are probably many and varied, they collectively help to validate the execution of the present study. The present e valuation instrument receiv e d a number of positive responses from the research subjects, but some of the subjects asked to evaluate th e instrument w e re r e puls e d at the idea of reducing a film to objective evaluation. 2. Meaningful, comprehensive film evaluatio n, as any other aspect of education, takes a lot of time and effort by those doing the evaluation Haphazard evaluation or analysis of films used in classrooms o r out of class as adjuncts t o t e aching can develop into a serious probl e m for students and teachers alike. 3. Even with t h e degree of objectivity inherent in the design and use of the pr esent instrument, film evaluation is still a largely subjective e ndeavor. 4. Even with the availability of a good, comprehensive film evaluation i ns.trument, it is assumed that many teachers would not use it. Conclusions The following major conclusions have been reached in the present study: 1. An instrument has been developed to aid teachers in various subject areas in high schools and community colleges in selecting and evaluating entertainment films for use in their teaching. The fact that
PAGE 62
56 66% of the teachers involved in the data analysis said they would use a modified version of the preliminary instrument indicates some degree of usefulness for such an instrun~nt. 2. The four bases of curriculum and instruction as proposed by Hass Bondi and Wiles (1974) proved useful as a structural basis for the content of the film evaluation instrument developed in this study, generally receiving praise from evaluators and offering a strong basis for the content validity of the instrum ent. 3. The statistical procedure of factor analysis was useful in helping to analyze large amounts of data in developing the film evaluation instrument and in investigating the construct validity of the instrument, but was not completely conclusive in helping to revise the instrument. ~ x pansion of the sample si z e and further investigation of the topic by f actor analysis might statistically validate the instrument more c o nclusively Recommendations Any further exploration of the subject of film evalu a tion is beyond the scope and intent of the present study. Hence the following recommendations are made on the film evaluation instrument and film e valuation in general: l. It .is reco mmended that the instrument developed in this study be used by hig h school and community college teachers, librarians and audio-visu a l specialists for experimental purposes only pending further testing and refinement of the instrument 2. Teachers anticipating use of the instrument should familiarize themselves well with the content of the instrument before actual
PAGE 63
use. It is recommended that each teacher use the instrument in the manner which will benefit him or her best, including scoring procedures used in evaluating films. 57 3. It is recommended that the subject of film evaluation be explored further, particularly on elemental~ and middle-school levels. The final instrument developed in this study is aimed at high school and community college classes, but might be revised and adapted for use in lower grades. 4. It is recommended that the four bases of curriculum and instruction as proposed by Hass, Bondi and Wiles (1974) be further explored as considerations in evaluating films and other instructional aids, as well as educational programs in general. Sugges ti ans for Fu_rther Study Further refinement and development of the instrum e nt developed in this study is suggested, with the following specific studies a minimum: 1. A determination of inter-rater reliability, using multiple pairs of raters vie\'Jin g the same films. 2. A replication of the factor analysis of this study, using a more appropriate sample size. At least 350 subjects are suggested for the 35~item instrument.
PAGE 64
BIBLIOGRAPHY Abbott, M. E. Children's standards in judging films. Teachers College Record, 1937, 38, 55-64. Amelio, R. J. Willowbrook ci.nema study project. Dayton, Ohio: Pflaum Standard, 1969. Amelio, R. J. Film in the classroom. ~Jhy use it. flow to use it. Dayton, Ohio: Pflaum-Standard, 1970. Anderson, S. B., Ball, S., Murphy, R. T., et al. Encyclopedia of educational evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1975. Anderson, A. An instrument for school administrators to use in measuring attitudes and prejudices (Doctoral dissertation, University of Nebraska Teachers Colleg e 1960). Dissertation Abstracts, 1960, 20, 4314-4315. (University Microfilms No. 60-1524) Arrmsmith, W. Film as educator. The Journal of Jl.esthetic Education, 1969, ] 73-77. Beaton, I~. Background for screen appreciation. English Journal, 1941, 30, 89-100. Bell, R., Cain, L. F., L amoreaux L. A., et al. Motion pictures in a modern curriculum: A report on the use of film s in the Santa Barbara schools. Washington: American Counci 1 on Education, 1941. Brown, I. G. The development and administration of a sickle cell anemia a\.'1areness instrument (Doctora 1 dissertation, University of Tennessee, 1972). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1973, 33, 3749-B. (University Microfilms No. 73-242 8 ) Brunstetter, M. R. How to use the educational sound film Chicago: Macmill. an, l93J. Brunstett er, M. R. Selecting educational talking pictures. School Executives Mag_azi ne, 1935, ~. 364-365. Buchanan, A. The film in education. London: Phoenix House, 1951. Bukalski, P. J. Film research: A critical bibliography with annotations. Boston: G. K. Hall, 1972. 58
PAGE 65
Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1963. 59 Chamberlin, R. P. Cinema in adult education: A study of the feature film series in America (Doctoral dissertation, University of California at Los Angeles, 1965). Dissertation Abstracts, 1965, 26, 187. (University Microfilms No. 65-6945 Clark, C. C. Sound motion pictures as an aid in classroom teaching: !\ comparative study of their effectiveness at the junior college level of instruction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, New York University, 1932. Comprone, J. Using painting, photography, and film to teach narration. College English, 1973, ~. 174-178. Culkin, J. Film study in the high school. New York: Fordham Film Study Center, 1965. Dale, E. How to appreciate motion pictures. New York: Macmillan, 1933. Dale, E. Teaching motion picture appreciation. ~ish Journal, 1936, ~. 113-120. Dale, E., Dunn, F. i I., Hoban, C. F., Jr., & Schneider, E. Motion pictures in education: !\ summary of the literature. New York: H. W. t!ilson, 1938. Dale, E., & Ramseyer, L. Teachin with motion ictures: /\ handbook of ---.-------~....._--~----~----,-administrative practice Series II, No. 2 Washington: American Council on Education,--i-937. Devereux, F. L. The educational talking picture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1935. Educational Film Library Association. Film evaluation: Hhy and how: A report on the ErLA works hop, January 24-25, 1963 Chicago: Author, 1963. Fox, D. J. The resea rch process in education. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1969. Frutchey, F. P., & Dale, E. Evaluation in motion picture appreciation. Educational Res earch Bulletin reprint. Columbus: Ohio State University, 1935. Gollin, R. M. Film as dramatic literature. Colleqe English, 1969, 424-429. Groves, P. D. Film in higher education and research. Elmsford, New York: Pergamon, 1966.
PAGE 66
G r ay, W. Film aesthetics. In D. C. Stewart (Ed.), Film stud{ in higher education. Washington: American Council on Education, 966. 60 G roves, P. D. Film in higher education and research. Elmsford, New York: Pergamon, 1966. Harman, H. H. Modern factor analysis (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1967. Hass, G., Bondi, J., & Wiles, J. Curriculum planning: A new approach. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1974. Herman, L. Educational films: Writing, directing, and producing for classroom, television, and industry. New York: CrO\-Jn, 1965. \' j~dgkinson, A. W. Screen education: Teachif!.9 a criti~~proach to ~l cinema and television (Reports and papers on mass communication, No. 42). Paris: UNESCO, 1964. Kael, P. It's only a movie. education. Washington: In D. C. Stewart (Ed.), Film study in higher American Council on Education, 1966. Keisman, M. Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn. In G. H. Poteet (Ed.), The compleat guide to film study. Urbana, Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English, 1972. Kerlinger, F. N. Foundations of behavioral research: Educational and psychological inquiry. New York: Holt, Rinehart & vlinston, 1964. K irk, R. H. An instru111ent for evaluating college and university health service programs (Doctor a l dissertation, Indiana University, 1960). Dissertation Abstracts, 1960, .[I__, 1166. (University Microfilms No. 60-4887) Knight, A. An approach to film history. In D. C. Stewart (Ed.), Film study in higher education. Washington: American Council on Education, 1966. L acey, R. A. Seeing with feeling: Film in the classroom. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders 1972. L anders, J. P. A score card for evaluating physical education programs for handicapped children. Research QuarterJ.i'.., 1945, !_, 216-220. L anier, V. Parameters of change. Arts and Activities, 1968, g, 28. Lewis, A. J., & Miel, A. Supervision for improved instruction: New challenges, new response~. Belmont, California: Wadsworth, 1972. McLuhan, M. Understan~media. New York: tkGraw-Hill, 1964. McLuhan, M, & Fiore, Q. The medium is the mess~. New York: Bantam, 1967. M allery, D. The school and the art of motion pictures. Boston: National Association of Independent Schools, 1966.
PAGE 67
61 Mallery, D. Film in the life o f the school. B oston: National Association of Independent Schools, 1968, M altin, L. Ftlm: The personal experience. In G. H. Poteet (Ed.), The compleat guide to film study. Urbana, Illinois: National Council of Teach ers of English, 1972. M a nchel, F. Film study: A resource guide. Rutherford, New Jersey: Fairleigh Dickinson University, 1973. M ay, M. A. Introduction to part III. Learning from films. New Haven: In M. A. M a y and A. A. Lumsdaine (Eds.), Yale University Press, 1958. May, M. A., & Howell, J. J. Film evaluation by roa d testing. In M. A. May and A. A. Lumsdaine (Eds.), Learning from films. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1958. May, M. A., & Lumsdaine, A. A. (Eds.). Learning from films. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1958. May, M. A., & Nerden, J. T. Factors related to the u s e of motion picture films by public school teachers. In M.A. May and A. A. Lumsdaine (Eds.), Learning from films. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1958. Maynard, R. The celluloid curriculum. Rochelle Park, New Jersey: Hayden, 1971. Meh rens, W. A., & L ehmann, I. J. Measurement and evaluation in education and psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart & 'v/rnston, 1973. Meierhenry, vi. C. Enriching the curriculum througb.__ motion pictures. Lincoln: University of t J e braska Press, 1952. Mullen, S. M. How t o judge m otion pictures. New York: Scholastic Magazine Reprints, 193 4 Par rington, R. An ~ ducator's guide to the use of film. Chicago: Argus, 1967. Peters, C. C., & Van Voorhis, W. R. Statistical procedures and their math ematical bases New York: McGra w-Hill, 1940. Peters, J. M. L. Tea ching about the film. New York: Columbia University, 1961. Poteet, G. H. Film as language: Its introd uction into a high school cur riculum. ~ish Journal, 1968, ~. 1182-1186. Poteet, G ~ H. (Ed.). The compleat guide to film stuqx. Urbana, Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English, 1972 Rand, H., & Lewis, R Film and school: A handbook in moving-picture eval uation. NevJ York: D. Appleton-Century, 1937. Schillaci, A., & Culkin, J. M. Films deliver: Teaching creatively with film. New York: Citation, 1970.
PAGE 68
62 Selby, S. A. The study of film as an art form in American secondary schools (Doctoral dissertation, Columbia University, 1963). Dissertation Abstracts, 1964, ~. 5098. (University Microfilms No. 64-5689) Sheridan, M M., Owen, H. H., Jr., Macrorie, K., & Marcus, F. The motion picture and the teaching of English. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1965. Sohn, D. A. Film study and the English teacher. Bloomington: Indiana University Audio-Visual Center, 1968. Solomon, S. J. Film study and genre courses. College Composition and Communication, 1974, .e_, 277-283. Stern, A. H. Using films in teaching English composition. English Journal, 1968, ~. 646-64 8 Stevens, G., ,Jr. The mass media in a liberal education. The Educational Record, 1965, 11, 68-71. Stewart, D. C. (Ed.). Film study in higher education. vJashington: American Council on Education, 196 6. Stoney, G. C Breaking the word barrier. In D. C. St e wart (Ed.), Film study in higher education. Washington: American Council on Education, 1966. Sutton, R. E. Film s tudy: The seventies and beyond. In G. H. Poteet (Ed.), The compleat guide to film study. Urbana, Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English, 1972. Ulibarri, H. E. Tea cher a wareness of socio-cultural diffe r ence s in multi color classroo m s (Doctor a l dissertation, University of New Mexico, 1960). Dissertation Abstracts, 1960, 20, 4313. (University Microfil~s No. 60-1261) Williams, F. Reasoning with statistics: Simplified examples in corrununications research. New York: H olt, Rinehart & Winston, 1968 Williams, R. H. An evaluation of policies and standards for student health service progra ms. Research Quarter_ly, 1948, .!2_, 262-268.
PAGE 69
APPENDIX A DIRECTIONS FOR EVALUATING FIU1S WITH THE PRELIMINARY INSTRUMENT
PAGE 70
O"\ -+:> DIRECTIONS FOR EVALUATING FILMS WITH THE PRELIMINARY INSTRUMENT In order to familiarize yourself with the instrument you are going to evaluate, the instrument itself should be used in evaluating a film. After viewing the film, please rate each item with a value of 1 to 5 according to the following rating scale: Standard Score Assignments For Fil m Evaluation Instrument Items (Rating Scale) N umerical Rating 2 ------3 ------4 5 Verbal Description of Ratin g Not at all. D oes not deal with this consideration. Contains no information or reference concerning this consideration. Deals with this consideration only slightly. It is included but is not really a part of the story. Deals with this consideration moderately. Minor or secondary characters are involved in this consideration. It is a part of the story but not a major part. Above a verage in dealing with this consideration. Important characters a re involved in this consideration as a n important part of the story. To a great extent. This consideration is a major part of the story. The main character or characters are involved in this consideration. The first column of numbers to the right of the questions provides the possible scores for each item in relation to the film itself. Circle the appropriate number. A separate rating scale card is provided for your convenience. Do not mark the second column of numbers or write comments during the film evaluation.
PAGE 71
APPENDIX B DIRECTIONS FOR EVALUATING THE FILM EVALUATION INSTRUMENT
PAGE 72
O'\ O'\ DIRECTIONS FOR EVALUATING THE FILM EVALUATION INSTRUMENT When you have finished evaluating the film, go bac k to the beginning of the instrument and rate each item with a value of 1 to 5 according to the following rating scale: N u merical Rating 2 3 4 5 Scale for Rating Preliminary Instrument Items Verbal Description of Rating U nacceptabl e H ighly inappropriate. The item has no significance to film evaluation. Acceptable but not recommended. The item has some significance but is not necessary for inclusion in the instrument. Aporopriate. Desirable for inclusion. The item is relevant and significant enough to be included in the film evaluation instrument. Highly aopropriate. Imoortant. The item is very important a s a part o f the film evaluation instrument. Essential. The item is highly significant and must be included in the film evaluation instrument. The second column of numbers provides the possible scores for each item for possible inclusion in the final instrument. Circle the appropriate number, and write any comments you may have about the item to the right or on the back of the page. A separate rating card is provided for your convenience.
PAGE 73
APPENDIX C PRELIMINARY INSTRUMEHT FOR EVALUATING FILMS FOR HIGH SCHOOL AND COMMUNITY COLLEGE TEACHING NUMBER ONE
PAGE 74
PRELIMINARY INSTRUMENT FOR EVALUATING FILMS FOR HIGH SCHOOL AND COMMUNITY COLLEGE TEACHING Name of Fil m _____________ Your Teaching Field and Grade Level __________ Item SOCIAL FORCES l. To what extent does the film deal with a social problem? 2. To what extent does the film deal with an established institution? 3. To what extent does the film present an environmental or ecological problem? 4. To what extent does the film advocate changing values? 5. To what extent does the film deal with human morality or moral problems or crises? 6. To what extent does the film deal with human rights? Score Assignment for Evaluation of the Film l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 Rating for Inclusion in the Instrument l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 Comments
PAGE 75
Item 7. T o what extent does the film deal with the family or family 1 ife? 8. To what extent does the film demonstrate social change? 9. To what exLent does the film d eal with e conomics? 10. To what extent does the film d eal with the future? 11. To what extent does the film deal with the past? 12. To what extent does the film deal with education in general? 13. To what extent does the film deal with social or cultural pressures? 14. To what e xtent does the film d eal with science or scientific problems or processes? 15. To what extent does the film deal with illness or death? 16. To what extent does the film contain important characters who are students? 17. To what extent does the film deal with an educational problem? Score Assignment for Evaluation of the Film 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 i1 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Rating for Inclusion in the Instrument 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Comments O"'I I.O
PAGE 76
Item 18. To what extent does the film question accepted scientific principles? 19. To what extent does the film deal with natural phenomena? 20. To what extent does the film d eal with the m ass media? 2 1. To what extent does the film deal with p ersonal communication? 22. To what extent does the film deal with the government or government agencies? 23. To what extent does the film deal with the law or law enforcement? 24. To what extent does the film deal with religion or religious beliefs? 25. To what extent does the film d eal with politics? 26. To what extent does the film deal with war or peace? 27. To what extent does the film deal with a world problem? Score Assignment for Evaluation of the Film l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Rating for Inclusion in the Instrument 1 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Comments
PAGE 77
Item 28. To what extent does the film deal with specific geographical locations or regions? 29. To what extent does the film deal with foreign countries? HUMAN DEVELOPMENT 30. To what extent does the film d eal with human beings at certain stages of life? 31. To what extent does the film deal with children? 32. To what extent does the film deal with teenagers or young adults? 33. To what extent does the film deal with middleaged people? 34. To what e xtent does the film d eal with elderly people? 35. To what extent does the film deal with psychological and/or emotional problems? 36. To what extent does the film provide information about an occupation which might be helpful to students? Score Assignment for Evaluation of the Film l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Rating for Inclusion in the Instrument 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Comments
PAGE 78
Item 37. To what extent does the film deal with the subject of citizenship? 38. To what extent is-the film a psychological study of one or m ore individuals? 39. To what ext2nt does the film d eal with the cooperation of individuals and/or groups of people? 40. To what extent does the film deal with love? 41. To what extent does the film deal with making choices in life and the consequences that com e from the choices? 42. To what extent does the film d eal with the physical maturation of one or m ore persons? 43. To what extent does the film deal with intellectual development and/or achievement of one or m ore persons? 44. To what extent does the film deal with the biological basis of individual development? 45. To what extent does the film deal with emotional growth and development? Score Assignment for Eva 1 uation of the Film l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Rating for Inclusion in the Instrument 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Comments
PAGE 79
Item LEARNING 46. To what extent does the film deal with the general process of learning? 47. To what extent does the film deal with the subject of indivi dual learning? 48. To what extent does the film stimulate individual thought? 49. To what extent do you think the film might stimulate critical thinking in students? 50. To what extent does the film deal with problem solving ? 51. To what extent does the film d eal with different ways of learning, problem solving or achievement? 52. To what extent does the film deal with the origin or development of ideas? 53. To what extent does the film deal with group learning? 54. To what extent does the film deal with the outcomes of learning? Score Assignment for Evaluation of the Film l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 Rating for Inclusion in the Instrument l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 Comments -....J w
PAGE 80
Item KNOWLEDGE 55. To what extent does the film present information which might contribute to your course? 56. To what extent does the film contain historical inforrr.ation which m i ght be helpful to y our stulients? 57. To what extent does the film contain knowledge or information w hich might be transferred b y students to another situation? 58. To what extent does the film contain scientific information 11hich might be helpful to your students? 59. To what extent does the film d eal with a specific period of history? 60. To what extent does the film present informatio n about society or the way p eople function within the society? 61. To what extent does the film contain words or terms or references which are technically peculiar to your teaching field or subject? Score Assignment for Evaluation of the Film 1 2 2 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 Rating for Incl us ion in the Instrument l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Comments
PAGE 81
Item 62. (To what extent) is the film an adaptation of a novel, short story or play? 63. To what extent does the film deal with the subject or processes cf information p rocessin g and assimilation? ART 64. To what extent did the film provide an aesthetic experience for you? 65. To what extent do you believe the film could provide an aesthetic experience for your students? 6 6. To what extent is the film1s story line easy to foll ow? 67. To what extent does the film seem to be a n effective means of communication? ENTERTAINMENT 68. To what extent is the film entertaining? Score Assignment for Evaluation of the Film 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 Rating for Incl us ion in the Instrument 1 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 Comments
PAGE 82
Item GENERAL 69. To what extent is the film optimistic? 70. To what extent does the film deal with a problem or convey a situation in a realistic manner? OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONS Score Assignment for Evaluation of the Film 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1. Would you use this film for your classes? yes __ no __ If no, because: --(1) It is not appropriate to my subject area. --( 2) It is a poor f i 1 m. Rating for Inclusion in the Instrument 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Comments 2. What score (on a scale of 100) do you think the items related to your subject area should obtain in order for the film to be useful to you in your teaching? 3. What percentages would you assign to each of the following seven instrument categories in arriving at the total weighted score? Social Forces Human Development Learning ---------------Knowledge Entertainment Art General --------------------4. What do you think a minimum average score (out of a possible high of 5) should be for each item to obtain in order to be included in the final instrument? --------------
PAGE 83
5. Would you use a modified version of this instrument to preview or evaluate films for your classes? 6. {Optional) How do you think such an instrument might be useful to you?
PAGE 84
APPENDIX D INSTRUCTIONS FOR INSTRUMENT EVALUATORS Although the directions with the instrument scales are complete, and hopefully clear, the following information might help in completing the instrum ent evaluation: Step 1--Using the scale on page l and the first column of numbers (1 2 3 4 5), evaluate any entertainment film which you have seen. (This part of the study is included simply to familiarize yourself with the instrument and will n o t be included in the results of the study.) Step 2--Using the scale on page 2 and the second column of numbers (l 2 3 4 5), evaluate each instrument item _?~_fjlm evaluation item or potential film evaluation item, particularly in consideration of the bases of the instru~1ent (Social Forces, Human Development, Learning, Knowledge, etc.). St e p 3--Answer the open -ended items. (a) tlumber 2 means you are assigning a minimum acceptable gr ade to tho s e items related to your subject area in eva luating individual films for possible usefulness in your teaching. This might be a hypothetical score for some areas which h ave few, or even no, items related to them. Most areas do have at least a few items related specifically to their subject matter, 78
PAGE 85
though. (b) The minimum average score in number 3 is the basis on which items will be eliminated or retained in the instrument. 79 Thank you very much, and please indicate so on the back of the instrument or by letter if you would like a copy of the results of the study and/ or copies of the final instrument.
PAGE 86
APPENDIX E PRELIMINAR Y INSTRUMENT FOR EVALUATING FILMS FOR HIGH SCHOOL AND COMMUNITY COLLEGE TEACHING NUMBER THO
PAGE 87
co --' PRELIMINARY INSTRUMENT FOR EVALUATING FILMS FOR HIGH SCHOOL AND COMMUNITY COLLEGE TEACHING Name of Film Your Teaching Field and Grade Level -------------------------Item SOCIAL FORCES 1. To ,..,hat extent does the film deal with a social prcblem? 2. To what extent does the film deal vd th an established institution? 3. To what e xtent does the film present an envi rom 1 enta 1 or ecological problem? 4. To what extent does the film advocate changing values? 5. To what extent does the film deal with human morality or moral problems or crises? 6. To what extent does the film deal with human rights? Score Assignment for Eva 1 uati on of the Film l 2 3 4 r :) 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Rating for Inclusion in the Instrument l 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Comments
PAGE 88
Item 7. To what extent does the film deal with the family or family 1 ife? 8. To what extent does the film demonstrate social change? 9. To what extent does the film d eal vvith economics? 10. To what extent does the film d eal vii th the future? 11. To what extent does the fi 1 m deal Vii th the past? 12. To what extent does the film deal with social or cultural pressures? 13. To what extent does the film dea 1 with science or scientific problems or processes? 14. To what extent does the film deal v,iith illness or death? 15. To what extent does the film deal with an educational problem? 16. To what extent does the film deal with the mass media? 17. To what extent does the film deal with personal communication? Score Assignment for Evaluation of the Film 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 ,1. 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 Rating for Inclusion in the Instrument 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 45 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Corrunents co N
PAGE 89
Item 18. To what extent does the film deal with the government or government agencies? 19. To what e xtent does the film deal with the law or law enforcement? 20. To what ext~nt does the film deal with religi o n or religious beliefs? 21. To what extent does the film deal with politics? 22. To what extent does the film deal with war or peace? 23. To what extent does the film deal with a world problem? 24. To what extent does the film deal with specific geographical locations or regions? HUMAN DEVELOPMENT 25. To what extent does the film deal with human beings at certain stages of life? 26. To what extent does the film deal with children? 27. To what extent does the film deal with teenagers or young adults? Score Assignment for Evaluation of the Film 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Rating for Inclusion in the Instrument 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Comments 0::, w
PAGE 90
Item 28. To what extent does the film deal with middleaged people? 29. To what extent does the film deal with elderly people? 30. To 'r<1hat extent Joes the f ilm d eal with psychological and/or emotional problems? 31. To what extent does the film deal with the subject of citizenship? 32. To what extent does the film deal with the cooperation of individuals and/or groups of 33. To what extent does the film deal with love? people? 34. To v1hat extent does the film deal 1vi th making choices in life and the consequences that come from the choices? 35. To what extent does the film deal with the physical maturation of one or more persons? 36. To what extent does the film deal with intellectual development and/or achievement of one or more persons? Score Assignment for Evaluation of the Film l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 Rating for Inclusion in the Instrument l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 Corrrrnents
PAGE 91
Item 37. To what extent does the film deal with emotional growth and development? LEARNING 38. To what extent does the film deal with the general process of learning? 39. To what extent does the film ceal with the subject of individual learning? 40. To what extent does the film stimulate individual thought? 41. To what extent do you think the film might stimulate critical thinking in students? 42. To what extent does the film deal with problem solving? 43. To what-extent does the film dea 1 with different ways of learning, problem solving or achievement? 44. To what extent does the film deal with the origin or development of ideas? 45. To what extent does the f i 1 m deal with group learning? Score Assignment for Evaluation of the Film 1 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 .., 4 ,) 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Rating for Inclusion in the Instrument 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 Comments co u,
PAGE 92
Item 46. To what extent does the film deal with the outcomes of learning? KNOWLEDGE 47. To 1,,1hat extent does the film present information which might contribute to your course? 48. To what extent does the film contain historical information which might be helpful to your students? 49. To what extent does the film contain knowledge or information which might be transferred by students to another situation? 50. To w hat extent does the film contain scientific information which might be helpful to your students? Score Assignment for Evaluation of the Film l 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 51. To what extent does the film present information about society or the way people function within th e society? l 2 3 4 5 52. To what extent does the film contain words or terms or references which are technically peculiar to your teaching field or subject? 53. (To what extent) is the film an adaptation of a novel, short story or play? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Rating for Inclusion in the Instrument 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Comments co O"I
PAGE 93
Item 54. To what extent does the fi 1 m dea 1 with the subject of or processes of information processing and assimilation?-ART 55. To what extent did the film provide a n aesthetic experience for you? 56. To what extent do you believe the film could provide an aesthetic experience for your students? 57. To what extent is the film's story line easy to foll ovJ? 58. To what extent does the film seem t o be an effective means of communication? ENTERTAINMENT 59. To what extent is the film entertaining? GENERAL 60. To what extent does the film deal with a problem or convey a situation in a realistic manner? Score Assignment for Evaluation of the Film 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Rating for Incl us ion in the Instrument 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Comments 00 -....J
PAGE 94
OPEN-ENDED QUEStIONS 1. Would you use this film for your classes? yes __ no __ If no, because: --(1) It is not appropriate to my subject area. --(2) It is a poor film. 2. What score o r grade d o you think the items related to your subject area should obtain in order for the film to be useful to you in y our teaching? (For example, a score of 75 on a scale of 100) ------3. What do you think a minimum average score (out of a possible high of 5) should be for each item to obtain in orcier for that item to be included in the final instrument? -------------4. Would you use a modified version of this instrument to preview or evaluate films for your classes? yes __ no __ 5. (Optional) How do you think such an instrument might be useful to you? (Please use the back of this page if needed.) co co
PAGE 95
APPENDIX F SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES WITH PARTICIPATING EVALUATORS, BY STATE Florida T h e Bolles School, Jacksonville, Florida Broward Conrnunity College, Fort Lauderdale, Florida Florida Junior College, Jacksonville, Florida Miami.-Dade Community College, Miami, Florida Newberry aunior S e nior High School, Newberry, Florida Santa Fe Community College, Gainesville, Florida Georgia Gordon Lee High School, Chickamauga, Georgia Lafayette High S chool, Lafayette, Georgia Lakeview-Fort Oglethorpe High School, Fort O glethorpe, Georgia South Carolina Spartanburg Methodist College, Spartanburg, S outh Carolina Tennessee Harrim~n High School, Harriman, Tennessee Roan e State Com munity College, Harriman, Tennessee 89
PAGE 96
APPENDIX G FACTORS AND FACTOR LOADINGS FOR ALL ITEMS IN THE FIELD TEST Item Fa 1 Fa 2 Fa 3 Fa 4 Fa 5 Fa 6 Fa 7 Fa 8 Fa 9 Fa 10 Fa 11 Fa 12 1. .474 .326 -.166 123 .465 .075 125 .125 193 .036 .136 -.181 2. .634 208 .118 .241 355 148 -. 022 .225 .249 128 .075 -.166 3. .33 0 141 .431 -. 117 .605 191 171 151 -.021 -.050 .194 -.074 4. .447 .378 -.245 101 .398 -.050 114 189 159 .244 -.012 .119 5. .463 .144 -.197 .361 .616 -.087 .081 .086 .197 .107 -.037 .033 6. .390 .219 .006 .017 731 .301 -.073 -.140 .083 151 -.027 -.049 7. .704 .029 -.083 124 .452 194 -. 121 126 .059 .170 -.033 -.132 8 .272 304 143 -. 188 .497 .079 .384 116 .254 .336 -.192 -.011 9 .763 .070 190 .036 .006 106 -. 120 .220 .024 126 .014 -.306 10. .404 .526 .298 -.067 .333 .078 -.056 -.088 -.039 .177 113 -. 164 11. .217 -.005 .335 152 .457 -.128 .010 .108 -.263 .415 -.141 193 12. .346 .115 .110 -.103 .762 111 -.074 .012 148 196 .118 .113 13. .344 .219 .658 .006 225 18a .073 .011 141 -.108 -.022 .061 14. .578 .211 .085 .112 .476 .176 -.170 -.013 -.170 .331 -.022 158 15. .060 .764 .037 -.249 .028 169 .028 .227 -.054 .219 .278 -.036 16. .761 .240 .014 .092 171 -.025 .003 -.156 .057 -.058 .034 -.119 17. .394 .421 .037 -.004 .394 .0 3 3 .048 -.150 .407 .372 -.002 .209 18. .877 -.091 .0 8 7 -.042 -.028 .065 -.021 .026 -.030 .099 -.014 125 19. .908 126 .106 008 .109 .092 .031 .114-.057 .147 -.040 -.049 20. .775 -.017 -.061 .295 .316 .031 .008 .063 .063 187 .045 .174 21. .746 .041 .058 .292 .364 .009 .086 .150 .045 142 .014 162 22. .764 134 .089 .092 .242 .048 187 .089 .109-.098 .218 -.043 90
PAGE 97
91 Item Fa 1 Fa 2 Fa 3 Fa 4 Fa 5 Fa 6 Fa 7 Fa 8 Fa 9 FalOFall Fa 12 23. .496 .215 -.079 -.095 321 .160 .275 .310 159 .058 .429 .085 24. .310 150 .296 -.002 .367 .188 170 .563 -.119 -.084 .000 159 25. .296 .074 -.202 .053 .047 .213 -.166 .090 .003 785 032 -. 112 26. .539 299 -. 191 -.094 -.015 .248 .080 .025 -.080 .428 .438 .222 27. .538 .323 .183 -.143 .164 .259 .036 -.201 .003 .493 .275 .268 28. .526 .264 110 -. 109 .236 .228 105 141 -.065 .490 179 .319 29. 821 .201 -.000 124 .056 123 200 -. 133 -. 119 .205 187 .083 30. 188 .335 152 .030 .455 122 .090 -.054 .326 .459 .318 .287 31. .743 113 .274 -.289 -.026 -.132 .045 .229 .063 .074 -.252 141 32 633 .264 -.123 -.023 l 08 .132-.011 .022 .394 .322 .074 .039 33. .518 .164 -.166 .113 .251 .219 -.083 .010 .251 .421 -.009 .229 34. .345 .217 -.162 .082 158 .223 -.115 -.145 .737 187 .003 -.046 35. .194 .325 .082 -.126 0 8 9 .009 .072 159 .072 .797 .030 -.038 36. .450 .390 .078 178 .061 .106 -.078 190 .362 .456 .334 .034 37. .066 .273 .065 .080 391 .042 .167 -.090 .372 .700 .057 -.081 38. .087 .785 174 .079 .091 -.032 .102 .137 -.030 176 .308 128 39. 157 .889 169 120 155 .034 -.030 -.084 -.003 139 081 021 40. -.040 .448 -.060 .329 110 131 .383 139 .402 -.082 .082 186 41. -.357 .203 -.052 .393 149 .180 .384 -.123 .410 .324 -.243 -.123 42. -.071 .573 .024 .217 145 .291 -.141 .025 .397 .094 -.273 108 43. 195 .709 151 051 175 .248 .013 -.033 .313 .108 -.320 .042 44. 162 811 .140 191 .188 -.081 .069 169 .126 -.023 -.107 .017 45. .213 .783 197 .219 .028 .124 -.214 .099 .098 171 -.029 -.041 46. 145 .630 .314 .109 .074 .193 -.055 .066 .247 .209 .025 .086
PAGE 98
92 Item Fa l Fa 2 Fa 3 Fa 4 Fa 5 Fa 6 Fa 7 ra 8 Fa 9 Fa 10 Fa 11 Fa 12 47. -.280 .255 .514 -.117 .344 .161 -.072 -.073 .193 .0 8 6 -.172 -.065 48. -.029 .385 .375 .327 .373 .272 -.254 .200 -.294 -.010 -.111 -.137 49. -. 184 .239 .616 .076 .239 .187 -.107 -.012 .486 .056 .062 -.061 50. 146 .273 773 .103 -.210 .169 -.045 -.022 -.173 .061 .144 -.013 51. 140 .404 165 .234 .310 -.094 -. 159 .082 .330 321 .415 -.122 52. -.020 /214 .770 .105 -.084 -.165 -.061 .246 .025 .039 -.037 -.013 53. .177 .050 .099 .283 -.027 080 -. 132 .796 -.057 159 .056 .062 54. .276 .470 .259 -.074 111 .021 -.202 .352 .008 .353 .395 .076 55 130 150 .018 869 -.035 .178 -.037 .118 .089 .005 -.018 150 56. .219 190 153 .885 .028 .136 .053 .088 .062 -.046 -.001 .060 57 167 -.002 .244 .076 .048 .776 -.043 .213 .210 .226 -.009 175 58. .026 .110 .214 .375 .234 .576 -.174 .136 .387 -.028 .157 -. 129 59. 231 .019 160 .378 217 715 151 .018 -.092 .008 .127 -.016 60. .130 .316 -.098 .032 .072 809 l 09 044 111 .142 -.069 -.024
PAGE 99
APPENDIX H ASSIGNMENT OF ITEMS TO CURRICULUM CATEGORIES Categor y Social Sciences I Social Sciences II Physic a l Sciences Biological Sciences Humanities Communication Education Business-Economics Genera 1 Maximum Score 65 30 15 30 60 35 45 15 30 93 Items 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 17, 25, 28, 19 1, 2, 8, 12, 25, 28 25, 27, 28 10, 14, 18, 25, 27, 28 3, 8, 13, 25, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 25, 28, 29, 32, 33, 34, 35 11, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 28, 35 6, 25, 28 7, 15, 16, 25, 26, 28
PAGE 100
APPENDIX I FINAL INSTRUMENT FOR EVALUATING FILMS FOR HIGH SCHOOL AND COMMUNITY COLLEGE TEACHING Name of Film ----------Item Item Score SOCIAL FORCES 1. To what extent does the film deal with a social problem? 1 2 3 4 5 2. To v1hat extent does the film deal with an established institution? 1 2 3 4 5 3. To what extent does the film deal with human morality or moral problems or crises? 1 2 3 4 5 4. To what extent does the film deal with human rights? 1 2 3 4 5 5. To what extent does the film deal with the family or family 1 ife? 1 2 3 4 5 6. To what extent does the film deal with economics? l 2 3 4 5 7. To what extent does the film deal with the future? 1 2 3 4 5 8. To what extent does the film deal with the past? 1 2 3 4 5 9. To what extent does the film deal with social or cultural pressures? 1 2 3 4 5 10. To what extent does the film deal with illness or death? 1 2 3 4 5 11. To what extent does the film deal with an educat ional prob 1 em? 1 2 3 4 5 12. To what extent does the film deal with the law or law enforcement? 1 2 3 4 5 13. To what extent does the film deal with religion or religious beliefs? 1 2 3 4 5 94
PAGE 101
HUMAN DEVELOPMENT 14. To what extent does the film deal with human beings at certain stages of life? 15. To what extent does the film deal with the cooperation o f individuals and/or groups of people? 16. To what extent does the film deal with love? 17. To what extent does the film deal with making choices in life and the consequences that Coffie from the choices? 18. To what extent does the film deal with the physical maturation of one or more persons? 19. To what extent does the film deal with emotional growth and development? LEARNING 20. To what extent does the film deal with the general process of learning? 21. To what extent does the film deal with the subject of individual learning? 22. To what extent does the film deal with problem solving? 23. To what extent does the film deal with the origin or development of ideas? 24. To what e xtent does the film deal vdth the outcomes of learning? KNOWLEDGE 25. To what extent does the film present information which might contribute to your course? 95 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5
PAGE 102
26. To what extent does the film contain knowledge or information which might be transferred by students to another situation? 27. To what extent does the film contain scientific information which might be helpful to your students? 28. To what extent does the film contain words or terms or references which are technically peculiar to your teaching field or subject? 29. (To what extent) is the film an adaptation of a novel, short story or play? AESTHETICS 30. To what extent did the film provide an aesthetic experience for you? 31. To what extent do you believe the film could provide an aesthetic e x perience for your students? COMMUNICATION 32. To what extent is the film's story line easy to follow? 33. To what extent does the film seem to be an effective means of communication? 34. To wha~ extent is the film entertaining? 35. To what extent does the film deal v1ith a problem or convey a situati o n in a realistic manner? 96 l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5
PAGE 103
APPENDIX J SAMPLE LETTER TO A FILM INSTRUCTOR Mr. Earl Farris Florid a Junior College Jackso nville, Florida 32216 Dear M r Farris: I am in the process of completing my doctoral dissertation at the Univer sity of Florida, and I vmuld like for you to serve as an "expert" in my s tudy. The study involves the evaluation of films for use in teachi n g and is the final hurdle in an Ed.D. program in Curriculum and Instruction. I am attempting to develop a comprehensive instrument for previewing and/or evaluating entertainment films for use in high school and community college teaching. The study involves a fairly large number of teachers and administrators who will serve as evaluators in helping me to arrive at a final instrument. Structured around what Hass, Bondi and Wiles call the four bases of curriculum and instruction--Social Forces, Human Develop ment, L e arning and Knowledge--the study has generally taken about 30 minutes for eac h participant and involves no commitment other than the evaluation at the p resent stage. I am particularly interested in your response because of your involvement in teaching film and media-related courses in the comnunity college. If you are interested in serving as an evaluator, please complete the enclosed instrument ~ nrl return it in the self-addressed, stamped envelope within the next couple of weeks. If you would like to receive results of the study and/or copies of the f inal instrument, please indicate so and I will be happy to send them to you. Thank you very much. I am looking forward to hearing from you. Sincerely yours, Verl e Barnes 97
PAGE 104
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Richard Verle Barnes was born on September 28, 1949, the son of Malcolm and Betty Barnes of Chattanooga, Tennessee. When he was still a small child, his family moved across the state line into the north Georgia community of Lakeview, where he distinguished himself as an honor student and Little League baseball batting champion. There he also met and fell in love with his future wife, Miss Shirley Ann Christian. 98 Upon high school graduation, Barnes matriculated to the University of Georgia, where he lived an undistinguished life as a javelin thrower and student until his decision to become a journalism n@jor. He received an A.B.J. degree in journalism in 1971, and remained on the Georgia campus as a dormitory counselor until he received his M.A. in journalism in 1972. As a graduate student, he caught the education bug and decided to dedicate his life to the betterment of students, and he left Georgia for the piedmont region of South Carolina to be come a teacher at Spartanburg Junior College. With a desire for more advanced education, Barnes entered the University of Florida and land e d in an Ed.D. program in Curriculum and Instruction. From Florida he and Shirley went to the east Tennessee hills, where he is presently a community college teacher of journalism and English and where he realized his greatest accomplishment by far: a beautiful son named Adam Verle Barnes.
PAGE 105
I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Education. C. Glen Hass, Chairman Professor of Curriculum and Instruction I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Education. Associate Professor of Curriculum and Instruction I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptabl e standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Education. 4_/ '\~_.,,,-__ o on rence \ Associate Professor of Curriculum and Instruction I certify th a t I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Education. ~~'\__"-'-'\'\\, ~ William C Childers Professor of English
PAGE 106
I certify that I have read this study and that in my op1n1on it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Education. / ; () )/ ---:-.' c t -( t ((. 1 L Linda M. Crocker Assistant Professor Education .,, ."I /'' (_ '-z~ ( l \2h L of Foundations of This d issertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Department of Curriculum and Instruction in the College of Education and to the Graduate Council, and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education. August 1977 Dean, Graduate School
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID EX8TP4Q41_ZL3VYK INGEST_TIME 2017-06-08T21:38:03Z PACKAGE AA00055804_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
|
|