A STUDY OF INSTRUCTIONAL TELEVISION DIRECTOR-INSTRUCTOR INTERACTION AND COMMUNICATION ' Thesis for the Degree Of M. A. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY ' DOUGLAS KENT MEHLIIAFF 1970 University ___.__ _ ._ ;——v-——.~—~—I _ _ ABSTRACT A STUDY OF INSTRUCTIONAL TELEVISION DIRECTOR-INSTRUCTOR INTERACTION AND COMMUNICATION By Douglas Kent Mehlhaff Any interaction between two people indicates that there must be communication between them. The factors which con- tribute to successful or unsuccessful communication between the director and instructor of instructional television have not, as far as the author can establish, been identified through systematic study. This study observed the communication between a director and instructor of an instructional television series over a period of ten weeks. Through a series of questions answered by the director and instructor, audio taped recordings of their meetings, and personal interviews with the author, some characteristics of their communication became evident. The verbatim information so obtained is the basis for the study. Since the observation of only one team of a director and instructor offers no basis for comparison and generalization to other teams of directors and instructor, any conclusions and recommendations can obviously be neither extensive nor profound. If this study performs any service, it is mainly -q :y-SV I _u A...‘ 1*r1 .,, yv.l Au 0 (h ‘3 (I) (U Jr - I k «I ‘1- I (1') (h I“? Douglas Kent Mehlhaff to invite further study and to experiment with a method for conducting such study. It is also possible that the verbatim information by the instructor and the director will make in- teresting reading which the reader can subject to his own analysis, either now or with reference to possible later studies. A STUDY OF INSTRUCTIONAL TELEVISION DIRECTOR—INSTRUCTOR INTERACTION AND COMMUNICATION By Douglas Kent Mehlhaff A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in parital fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS DEPARTMENT OF TELEVISION AND RADIO 1970 H J ersity, . v}. -.-'I Accepted by the faculty of the Department of Television and Radio, College of Communication Arts, Michigan State University, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Arts degree. 619%” LQAUI‘A Director—bf*Thesis ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This writer is deeply grateful to many persons for their considerate and willing contributions made to this study. This writer is especially grateful to: Dr. Colby Lewis, Thesis Advisor, for his counsel and encouragement in developing and completing this study. Dr. Erling Jorgensen, Director of Closed Circuit Tele— vision, for his sensitive appraisal of the original study proposal and his continuing interest in the study. Mr. Robert Muhlbach, Production Coordinator Closed Cir- cuit Television, Michigan State University, for his pre— liminary assistance in meeting the director and he in— structor of the television series. The director and the instructor, who must remain anony— mous, for cooperating and furnishing the material for this study. My wife, Audrey, who typed the manuscript, without whose encouragements and constant support, I would not have been able to continue this study. ii 2:3 All-mg. _‘_. .. ..—— Ti" My children, Scott, Renee, and Kirk, who unknowingly had to share in the obstacles and successes throughout the study. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ........................................ ii LIST OF APPENDICES ..................................... v CHAPTER I. THE ITV INSTRUCTOR-DIRECTOR RELATIONSHIP ....... I II. NATURE AND METHOD OF THE STUDY ................. IO III. DIRE TOR'S DESCRIPTION OF TV COURSE ............ 16 Background ..................................... 16 Director's Description of TV Course ............ 17 Director Recap of Early Production Meeting ..... 19 IV. INITIAL SURVEY QUESTIONS ....................... 27 Initial Survey Questionnaire ................... 28 V. INSTRU TOR-DIRECTOR PRODUCTION MEETINGS ........ 33 VI. INSTRUCTOR AND PRODUCER—DIRECTOR INTERVIEWS. 38 Instructor Interview ........................... 39 Producer—Director Interview .................... “9 VII. TERMINAL QUESTIONNAIRE ......................... 63 lnterview at Termination of Quarter ............ 63 VIII. ANALYSIS OF INFORMATION ........................ 69 Analysis of Available Data ..................... 69 Personal Compatability ......................... 69 Concept of Roles ............................... 69 Production Information ......................... 70 Evaluation of the Production ................... 71 Lack of Communication .......................... 72 The Need For Further Study ..................... 7A BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................... 76 APPENDIX A ............................................. 79 APPENDIX B.... ......................................... 8? iv LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix Page A. INSTRUCTIONS AND GUIDELINE FOR DIRECTOR AND INSTRUCTOR ON THE TELEVISED COURSE IN GEOGRAPHY .............................. 79 B. QUESTIONNAIRE ............................. 82 THE ITV INSTRUCTOR-DIRECTOR RELATIONSHIP The relationship of a television teacher and pro— ducer director is the single most important factor toward improving instructional television, par— ticularly on the college level.1 The above quotation provided the motivation for the present study, the aim of which was to investigate the re- lationship between the instructor and director of a series of televised geography lessons produced at Closed Circuit Television, Michigan State University, during Winter Quar— ter, 1970. The method of this study will be described in Chapter II. As background to the study, this opening chap— ter describes the roles of television instructors and di- rectors in general and reports what the available litera~ ture recommends about how these roles should be related. This introduction should establish that if the relationship is not "the single most important factor" in improving in- structional television at the college level, it is at least one of the most important factors. In the classroom, an instructor is accustomed to work— ing mainly by himself and to communicating with his stu- dents directly. On television, however, his lesson will not reach his students without passing through micrOphone and lGriffith, B. L., Mac Lennan, D. w. Improvement of Teachinggby Television. Univ. Missouri Press. Columbia, Miss., 196A. p. 222. 2 camera. This brings the instructor in contact with the per- son - variously termed the director or producermdirector — who directs what shot the cameras will take, orders the switching of these shots into the program, and coordinates all production personnel in their preparation for the exe- cution of the program. The instructor and director must collaborate, as evinc— ed by the paired words, "instructional television." The in- structor, representing the first of these words, is expected to know the subject matter to be taught and is usually accord— ed the final right of decision over how it will be taught. The director, representing the second word, "puts the lesson on television" and, as a presumed television specialist, con- siders himself responsible for advising the instructor how the lesson can be adapted most effectively to the require— ments and potentialities of the medium. If the director's camera shots are to interpret the lesson correctly, the instructor must surrender some of the independence he enjoys in the classroom and communicate his intentions to the director. For example, the director must know what film, slides, and other visuals will be used in the lesson and when they will occur. To plan his camera pickup, he must know what the instructor will say and do while he is on camera, what visuals are to be framed, what movements the cameras will have to follow, what factors should be singled out for special emphasis, what elements need to be seen in closeup or from Special angles. 3 If the shots are to come off as planned, it is neces— sary that, during the performance, the instructor conform to the predetermined sequence of events, moving about and in- volving his visuals in the order which the director is an— ticipating. Furthermore, the instructor's presentation should be such that the camera operatorscan-keep it properly framed and focused and will have time to set up their next shots before they are taken. Visual subjects should be lo- cated in such relation to each other and to the camera posi- tions that they will not be obscured and so that they will command proper emphasis on the screen, freed from the compe- tition of irrelevant and distracting material. The color, size, and proportion of visual aids used by the instructor should be such that the television system can reproduce them faithfully and clearly. All these matters require consultation and agreement be- tween the instructor and director. And if the instructor is new to television, the director will have to try to make him aware of these requirements and advise him how to conform to them. The director is likely to realize, as the instructor may not, that television is received differently than face-to- face instruction. Some examples of this difference are pro— vided by Stephen White, a producer of educational television and films. When these media are employed, the students, he explains, will have their eyes fixed on a small screen and what they see will be shadows, in two dimensions. A In the classroom there may be a blackboard, with words scribbled over it; in the real situation this is of no matter, for the student will con— centrate on the instructor and effectively will not see the blackboard. On the screen, black— board and instructor are on the same plane, and the mixture will be a constant irritation and distraction.l Besides this visual problem, White cites the problem of keeping students attentive to what they see on the screen. The actual presence of the instructor in the classroom, he states, is likely to command more attention than will his image on the screen. To compensate in the latter instance, one tactic is "to change the picture on the screen, so that the eye is confronted from moment to moment with a new image, and the brain is seduced with an illusion of motion and ac— tivity."2 White also notes that the viewer of instructional media will bring from his experience with other forms of film and television the expectation that ”anything which can be shown will be shown."3 Here, as in his concern above with visual changes, White seems to share a common conviction of tele— vision directors that television is a visual medium. As a textbook on television directing advises: The presence of a screen leads your viewers to ex— pect stimulation for their eyes as well as their ears. Unless they have been warned in some fashion not to expect much visual stimulation and are pre— pared to feel rewarded primarily by what they hear, 1 White, Stephen. Revolution in Teaching. "Educational Television and Films." Edited by Alfred de Grazia and David A. Sohn. Bantam Matrix Editions, N. Y. 196“. p. 103. 2 Ibid. p. 103. 3 Ibid. p. 10A. 5 the lack of visual inforTation will make them in- attentive and apathetic. Since the director is primarily a manipulator of visual changes, he will be professionally inclined to urge the in— structor to add more visual interest to his lesson than re- sults from his lecturing at a podium. So he may urge the instructor to move around, to make visual demonstrations, to include other persons in the presentation, and to incorpor- ate into the lesson slides, film, and videotape inserts on the grounds that they "bring the world into the classroom.” Television, in the director's view, offers unique instruc- tional advantages which the teacher should learn to employ. It is an altogether different medium of communication than face-to—face teaching in a classroom. Entering this different medium for the first time, some instructors may feel very insecure in the presence of the director, who seems to know much about techniques they know nothing of, and to be asking them to remake a course struc- ture and teaching style which it has taken them years to develop. Some may admit the need to change, as Huston Smith did: My course in comparative religions was a good course in the classroom. It was a reasonably good course over television, considering the limitations of time and experience under which we were working. But one of the reasons it was good over television was be— cause it was not the same course as was given in the classroom. Converting a good classroom course to a good television course is not a matter of shifting it intact from a classroom to a studio. It is like crumpling up a jigsaw puzzle whose pieces can be 1 Lewis, Colby. The TV Director/Interpreter. Hastings House, N. Y. 1968. p. 162. 6 fitted together in more than one way and figuring out the new and untried way they must be assembled.1 Other instructors may resist change on the grounds that their subject does not lend itself to visualization or that teach- ing is not a theatrical performance. Besides regarding the director as a challenge to their security, they may see him as a person of lesser status — immature, perhaps, or lacking a respectable academic discipline, also lacking sufficient knowledge of their particular subject matter and of valid educational methods and objectives. Hence, they may regard him as a mechanic, a button pusher, rather than a creative partner in the design of their lessons. On the other hand, as Stephen White observes, some ed- ucators err in deferring overmuch to directors who are more concerned with Showmanship than producing learning. Although White refers to film production in making his point, he makes it clear elsewhere that the point applies to television as well: It is difficult to resist when a director says con— fidently that a certain pedagogic point must be dis- torted in order that a cinematic point may be made. The director, presumably, knows what makes a motion picture and what does not, while the modest educator is likely to be acutely aware that he himself possesses no such knowledge. Unfortunately, however, the director's recommendations, al— though right for showbusiness, may be wrong for education. 1 Smith, Houston. Teaching To A Camera. NAEBB. Urbana, Illinois. 1955. p. A. Op. Cit. Revolution in Teaching. p. 105. 7 Hence, several writers on instructional television stress that the director should be, as one puts it, "an educator first, an expert in the arts and crafts of television second." Huston Smith was fortunate to have such a director. I could welcome my director as a full partner in my course because his educational concerns, stand— ards, and integrity were fully the equal of my own. Indeed no one, with the possible exception of my wife and one or two graduate professors, has worked so hard to force me to pound my ideas into clarity, economy, and relevance. Not once was there a diff— erence between us in what we were trying to do. It was simply a matter of integrating as completely as possible my knowledge of the subject with his aston— ishing feel for what constitutes communication and effective teaching over television. Mary Jane Phillips agrees that good television lessons result from a partnership between the instructor and the director. Teaching by television is a cooperative enterprise needing skill, imagination, and flexibility. The educator brings his special talents to the lesson and then the producer helps him organize. This wedding of talents is essential i tele-course are to be an extension of excellence. Such cooperation requires an identity of purposes. According to Edith McNabb: In addition to understanding the instructor, the producer must be able to identify himself with the instructor. Although identification should not be dependent upon compatibility, it is usually more easily aghieved if the two temperaments are compat— ible.... l Op,Cit. Teaching TO A Camera. p. U. 2 Phillips, Mary Jane. Teaching_By Television. Ford Foundation. 1961. p. 229. 3 Greenhill, L. P.; Sherk, H. D.; McKenzie, Betty. The Role of Production in Televised Instruction. Edith McNabb. NAEB, Urbana, Illinois. 1959. p. 29. 8 In any case, the cooperation between instructor and director depends upon effective communication between the two. Ester Meacham writes: The producer-director and the teacher each should have respect for each other's stature in his own field, each have faith in the other's ability, each feel free to Take suggestions and each have the power to veto. Costello and Gordon include in their qualifications of the good television teacher an ability to communicate effec— tively with the producer—director and to be unafraid to 'discuss both his own inherent weaknesses and those of the series in general. And the director, they believe, must be able to communicate his understanding of the nature of tele— vision to the teacher and should also have sympathy for the problems of teaching, of organizing subject matter, and of the difficulties a teacher has in achieving clarity and maintaining interest.2 Barkham and Chapman, in their book, summarize the mat- ter by writing: First and foremost, effective production hinges on communication between the television teacher and the director. Each must understand the intent and responsibilities of the other so that together they can augment and support each other in their work. Unless the director understands what the television teacher wants to achieve in a program, he is unable to control the various production factors towards those ends. Unless the television teacher understands what the television medium can and cannot do, he is unable to enact the ideas and situations which comprise a program in order to utilize the medium to its 0p.cit. The Role of Production In Televised Instruc— tion. Meachanu Ester. p. 229. 2 Costello and Gordon. Teaching With Television. Hastings House,Publishers. N. Y. 1965. 2nd Ed. pp. 92—9“. 9 maximum advantage. Clearly, the television teacher must see that he understands the goals of the entire series and how these will become manifest in specific terms. The director must also understand the content and structure of the particular program to help the teacher to determine which actions on camera will best convey the information and instructional intent. 1 Barkham, M.; Chapman, L. H. Guidelines For Art Instruc- tion Through Television For The Elementary Schools, NCSCT, Bloomington, Indiana. 1967. p. SI. II NATURE AND METHOD OF THE STUDY The previous chapter has tried to establish that the relationship of a television teacher and producer-director is an important factor in the success of instructional television production and that this relationship hinges on effective interpersonal communication. From the author's experience as a director of instruc— tional television at Montana State University, and also from intimations in the literature he has reviewed, it appears that this communication is not uniformly successful, that in some situations there is good rapport, but in others either a lack of productive exchanges or a state of disagreement. What factors make the difference between successful and un— successful communication have not, as far as the author can establish, been identified through systematic study. To identify such factors and attempt to rate them in order of their importance should help in selecting effective instructor-director teams and providing the conditions most likely to promote their productive interaction. And were the members of these teams mutually aware of the factors which influenced their communication, they might be better able to employ the more constructive influences and avoid the more destructive ones. 10 11 To identify these factors, it appears desirable to study, as objectively as possible, specific examples of communication behavior. Given a specific case - the assign— ment of a specific teacher and director, working under specific conditions to accomplish the production of a particu- lar television lesson series - one could describe as accur— ately as possible the interaction which actually occurred throughout the course of the production. This, admittedly, would be only a small beginning. Since it is obviously impossible to generalize from a single ex— ample, or from a few examples, there would have to be many such studies before one could begin to recognize a pattern wherein certain factors reoccurred so frequently as to estab— lish their significance. Promise that such factors would eventually emerge, however, is supported by the results of scientific observation of many other kinds of phenomena. The patient analysis of countless instances of a phenomeronin other fields has led to useful guidelines for improving man's circumstances and increasing his achievements. Such benefits now appear to be obtainable through the observation of com- munication behavior. The present study was a modest and, admittedly, not altogether successful attempt to break new ground in hopes of many further studies of the communicative interaction be— tween an instructional television instructor and director on the college level. As briefly stated at the beginning of Chapter I, the vehicle for the study was a series of l2 televised geography lessons produced at Closed Circuit Tele— vision, Michigan State University, during Winter Quarter, 1970. It appeared that more interesting and more numerous communication problems might arise in a production situation where the instructor was new to television or at least one where the instructor and director were working together for the first time. Two lesson series which fit this latter category were about to go into production at the beginning of the quarter, and it was the author's original intention to study both of them for purposes of comparison and contrast. In one of these series, the instructor was a novice at tele— vision teaching. This series, however, was to be produced under such pressure that, in the opinion of the Closed Cir- cuit Television management, the involvement of its instruc— tor and director in a study might be an unwelcome complica— tion. So the choice was narrowed to one. This was an introductory course for undergraduates. Since it was required for majors in the Geography Department and in several other departments, it usually had large en- rollments and, in the words of the television director assigned to it, was "the bread and butter course of the de— partment." The lessons were conducted twice weekly in a large ball, being delivered live to students in the hall and simultaneously videotaped for later playbacks to other students. It was disappointing to learn that, since the course 13 had been taught on television previously, both the director and instructor felt that most of the problems of televising it would already be solved. The scripts that had been used during previous quarters were available for renuse. HowF ever, a change of textbooks necessitated rearranging the scripts to conform to the order of material in the new book. Both the instructor and director of the course agreed to cooperate with the study. The instructor, a Ph. D., had taught this same course before cameras on alternate quarters for several years. He was considered by his colleagues to be an expert in his field. The director had directed numer~ ous other courses over closed circuit television. After learning television techniques at a trade school, he had attained a B.A. in Television and Radio at Michigan State University and was currently completing the requirements for an M.A. in Instructional Technology. Besides enlisting the subjects of the study, it was necessary to decide on a method for obtaining the desired record of their communication. It was planned to study the communication which occured during the entire ten weeks which were to be devoted to the production of the course. Although it seemed manifestly impossible to record every word exchanged between the instructor and director during this period, it was hOped to obtain on audio tape a verbatim transcription of their bi—weekly production meetings. In addition, it seemed advisable to obtain certain in— formation separately from each of the subjects of the study. 14 One means of obtaining this information was to be a ques- tionnaire, used at the start of production to obtain back- ground data on each person, his initial impressions of the other team—member, and his understanding of the roles to be played by himself and the other team-member. The author also intended to conduct separate inter- views with each of the subjects periodically throughout the quarter in order to obtain his views about the progress of interaction between himself and his colleague. When production of the series had beem completed, another questionnaire was planned to obtain from each sub- ject his views in retrospect concerning the success of his relationship with his colleague, and also to measure whether and in what respect his attitudes had changed since the initial questionnaire.l Although the questionnaires were administered as planned, it became evident quite early in the study that other aspects of the study would have to be modified to conform to the real situation. First, the production meetings were briefer than expected and occurred in a location not suitable for audio— taping. Nevertheless, a few meetings were recorded, and a sample of one is reproduced in a subsequent chapter. Second- ly, the instructor was unavailable for all but one personal interview because other commitments conflicted with meeting times scheduled with the author. Although these meetings 1 For copies of those questionnaires, see Appendices A and B. 15 were rescheduled, they were never held for the same reason. These cancellations, however, may have made little differ- ence to the study. As the reader will observe, the infor- mation that was received tends to be rather repetitive, which raises the speculation that the information not re- ceived would have been mainly replication. An addition to the original plans is the description of the course by the director, which is included and ex— plained in the next chapter. Subsequent chapters explain and reproduce respectively the initial questionnaire, a sample production meeting, a midterm interview with the director, a midterm interview with the instructor, and the terminal questionnaire. None of these chapters includes comments by the author; these will be found in the final chapter, which includes a summary, conclusions, and recommendations. Since the investigation of only one course offers no basis for comparison and generalization, the reader is warn- ed that these conclusions and recommendations are neither ex- tensive nor profound. If this study performs any service, it is mainly to invite further study and to experiment with a method for conducting such study. It is also possible that the replies by the instructor and director to the questions that were asked them will make interesting data which the reader can subject to his own analysis, either now or with reference to possible later studies. III DIRECTOR'S DESCRIPTION OF TV COURSE Background This course description was originally recorded on audio tape by the director one week following the first production meeting between the instructor and the director. Because this report was recorded on audio tape, the style of writing tends to be verbal and not literary. This description was included in the report for several reasons. The information covers some of the decisions that were made prior to the beginning of Winter Quarter, 1970, when this study began. It also covers decisions made during the first few production meetings before it was possible to record these meetings on audio tape. This description sets the background for several of the reports that follow it. For instance, it mentions the use of the older television scripts, and expected ease with which the series would be completed, and describes the production location. In this description the director also mentions some of the problems that they have already encountered. If the reader will refer to this report while reading the other reports, he will notice a repetition of the same problems. 16 l7 Director's Description of TV Course I would like to explain a little bit about how the course is being done and what we are doing to present this material to the students. Let me first begin by saying that, for Fall Term, 1969, it was decided to do geography in the studio with a different instructor. It was my understanding that at the beginning of Fall Term we would record the twenty lessons necessary to get through a ten-week term and then Winter Term play these lessons for a section, or sections, of geography students in 204, criticize these tapes as they are being played in respect to what we could do to enhance these pro- grams, then Spring Term, 1970, redo the lessons that needed to be brought up-to—date and put more pertinent information into them. But we found out about half way through the term that that wasn't what was to be done. They decided in the department, again a department decision, that rather than playing back the tapes from Fall Term, Winter Term they would have another instructor teach the course out of our Wells Hall studio. This studio is a large lecture hall. The cam- eras are in the back in what was a projection booth. The program is recorded, sent out live on the air, and then play— ed back later at another time to other sections. I think that the students, not necessarily the one in attendance in the Wells Hall studio as seating up to 150, are watching what would be considered a normal large lecture situation for the most part. I would say the instructor 18 manipulates at least 50 percent of his visuals under an overhead camera. He is responsible for laying them in and lining them up and the director is just responsible for tak— ing them and putting them on the air. The only advantage these students have in that large lecture hall is that he is present and they can see whatever he is manipulating under the overhead camera on monitors suspended from the ceiling. Now what this does to the TV classroom students is it makes them one more step removed. I think it's even worse than having an instructor in the studio where he can maintain eye contact with the student and each student is the person he is talking to. He can address himself and say you may notice that this, and this, and this, and he is talking to the stu- dents. In the Wells Hall situation the people watching in TV receiving rooms receive the instructor as if they were looking in over the shoulder of other students. They are watching him teach someone else; he is not really relating to the students in television land. The course itself is being recorded in the morning and being played back two more times during the day. It goes two times a week; the tapes are not being saved. We have what we call the revolving tape situation where we have probably four tapes in a pool, and if a tape would be recorded on Monday, two weeks from that Monday that tape would be over-recorded. Evaluations of tapes, I guess, are being handled more by the graduate assistants assigned to l9 teach the discussion sections of the course. I made some inquiries as to how this is being handled, and the instruc- tor said the discussion leaders get to him and point out any problems the students are having in the classroom. I guess the biggest thing we could use in putting any of these things together, and everybody needs it, is time. We don't really have much time to plan for these lessons. Again, these things were developed as long ago as three years and many of the visuals and things that were originally proposed and presented are still being used. There is some slight up-dating being done, and I am trying to up—date it by ordering films showing different things that are pertinent to the course. Director Recap of Early Production Meeting Our first meeting came approximately a week prior to the first taping session which, of course, was also a live lecture. We went over the outlines that were available and had been left in storage from the producer-directors that had previously set up the course. I had the impression at this time that the instructor was going to stick to these outlines as closely as he could. We looked at the first outline,and the instructor said there really wasn't much to the first program because it was just an introduction to the course and a kind of overview would be given. We looked at the outlines and found that the first eight lessons had been revised and it was decided at that time to use these first lessons revised the way they were. F v I?I.~ all\ it ”in up“! ‘rr1 .a-I-L1 F’f‘.‘ ‘s. in a. a. a Y, A ‘— .V‘ a}. ,- 7...,- 20 I suggested the use of several films to him and agreed to call him as soon as I had the films. Shortly thereafter we got a new Visual Dynamics catalog. I made a quick run through the book and picked out what I thought would be appropriate for him. I had this dropped off at his home. He looked at it and probably accepted three-fourths of what I had originally suggested he consider for use in his course. This amounted to some dozen or so film clips, and I had originally sent over probably twenty. When I found out just what he wanted to use, I took the list to my production man- ager and ordered the film clips. Our next meeting was the day prior to doing the first recording session. He camein probably an hour and a half before the lesson was to be recorded and we went through the files. We have two drawers full of visual materials: maps, charts, weather climagraphs, and definitions of terms and another drawer that contains supers of key words or key names or key dates——-things that are important for the stu- dent. We picked out the materials to be used on that day's lesson and then went through the files to get him familiar with what we have over here. I ran off for him some of the copies of the revised lessons that I had; and at the same time, I was short some of the older lessons in my particular file that I keep on this. However, at that time, we didn't think it too important that I get the older lesson plans. All that seemed important was that he would get the ones that we were going to be using at that time, so I gave him 21 all of them through Lesson 8. He said he would look through them and see if he could use them. Then we agreed that day to use the most recent outline available to us. We gathered up what visual materials were on hand for that particular lesson and went over and taped the program. I told him at that time that we would let him pace it, not to try to rush but to follow along the outline the best he could and present the materials we agreed to present and in whatever order they came on the outline. Now I found at times it was a bit shaky because he had a tendency to get out off the beaten track; and when we would return, he would not return to the same point where he left off. So this created problems for me. I waited to see what he would do. He would back—track two, three, or four giant steps and get back to where he left off originally so that things would not be put out of order. I talked to him after the lesson and asked if that was a tendency he had and he said,well,if we agreed to an outline then this is the way things would come, and he would try to stick to it, and that I should not get too upset if he missed something. I made some adjust- ments to it and let him be the judge as to where he was going and hoped that he would stick with the outline and that it wouldn't create any problems for me. We got through the first lesson plan as it was set up and half way through the second lesson plan. This created problems for the next lesson. We had to pick it up in the middle of Lesson 2 and then go through Lesson 3. We ended 22 up taking no less than two lesson plans a day to the studio along with visuals enough to compensate for this,depending on where he stepped and started, but we couldn't seem to get the timing down. He would start with what was origin— ally on a lesson plan, but we would always run over. The second lesson was similar. He came over A5 min— utes ahead of time. We picked out the visuals necessary, went over and did the program. The second lesson went fairly smooth. We didn't have any problems with it. Again it was a matter of him coming over and picking up the mate- rials that were necessary and going over and doing it. A problem came up around the time of the third lesson. We needed some visual material that I had to edit that was originally needed for another purpose, but he wanted to use part of it; so we had another meeting just picking out what would be done or be used. I looked at the visual material prior to that time and had some suggestions to make to him, but he originally stated that he wanted to narrate it and use it silent. I found that the audio was kind of consis- tent with what he wanted. He could have used the audio and more of what he finally decided to use. I had picked the 5-minute segment of this particular material, and he had cut that down to about one minute, ten seconds. Again, he did the narration of it. It was a decision he said he made bas— ed on what he thought was important for them to get out of the lesson, and that we shouldn't try to put anything extra into the lesson that wasn't germane or pertinent to what was 23 being taught. I felt that because of the interest value of this and the attentionvgetting value that it would have had for the course, that it might have been better to go my way. Again, we don't make the final decision on content; the instructor does. For the fourth lesson, video tape in- serts were going to be used. This is the one that we dis— cussed and that I edited plus another one that was used with the original course. It was a very poor film and poor quality. The only thing that I can say is that because of the quality, I do not know what it added to the student. I think it was scratched, dirty, and everything else, but again it was germane to the content and I couldn't get him to agree to drop it. Now the problem being the film projector itself that is available to us in this Wells control room isn't very good. If the film is full of splices, it is going to dump them, and scratch them, and rip them, and put extra sprocket holes in the film. Because of this we tend to transfer any- thing we have onto video tape and use video tape inserts rather than film. This creates other problems for us be— cause our communications from that control room to our tape room is separated by probably 150 yards. The phone communi— cations are very primitive so,knowing than you have inserts coming is a little bit of an unnerving situation. Well, at any rate, we used the inserts and the one that he narrated was no problem getting into it. He made a nice cue getting into it and we used it. He did what I thought he would do, and we discussed just keep going and,when it was there,make 2A references to it ten seconds later. The timing got off, and as soon as I took to the tape insert which was in black, he stopped talking. It was agreed than after that we would get a better communication system between the Wells control room and the Erickson Hall, and now we have a remote control that starts our insert machines. We received one of the films I had ordered, and I told him that it was in.1 I set up an appointment with him to preview the film. I am going to transfer it to video tape, label them, time them; and we are going to have a session watching it then figure out where we are going to use it in the series for the rest of the term. As of yet, I don't have an outline for the course which is bad because I don't know what we are doing from day to day except to look at what outlines are available to me in the file. We made a decision that we should shift over to the original outlines that were set up for the course. For Lesson A I used what I thought was the most current outline and pulled the visual materials for it and had it in mind. I read through it a couple of times so I knew where he was going. He came up a little bit later and cut our discussion time to about A0 minutes at best. At that time, he made the decision that we should shift to the new outlines, and I had to start over from scratch again. The lesson for that day wasn't as well done as it might have been. 1 Instructional film ordered from Visual Dynamics at the beginning of Winter Quarter to be used for geography curricu- lum instruction. 25 A problem that I think is important to mention is most instructors feel that when they teach a 50 minute course they have totalk for 50 minutes. Sometimes they find that by running through the visuals,which is a tendency he had in the beginning, he would have to cushion or talk rapidly to fill up the time. He is beginning to pace his content more so that things don't get all bunched up in one area and hopefully it's spread out over the entire time. I talk- ed to him after one lesson that it happened and told him that it probably would be bettergrather than to jump into the next outline,to cut the lesson short;sometimes he had to stretch up to ten minutes. I don't know why they have to stick to the 50 minutes, but they do. They don't seem to want to stop and let the students go. Another thing I think is important that I didn't point out earlier is what is their real reasons for using TV. As yet, I don't have a good answer for that, and I sat in on a meeting the department chairman attended. It seems to me they say overtly that the use of TV is there to improve the course. I think the use of TV is there because they have high enrollments and they don't have the teaching staff to teach the course. I guess what I am trying to say is that they are better off having a teacher or a professor teaching on TV than they would with graduate assistants teaching live sessions in a classroom. They just don't have the staff they need to teach the enrollment in this course and it is a bread and butter course. It's a course that pays for the 26 graduate school that they have. Most of the instructors don't like teaching these nuts and bolts courses. They get no benefit from it. The system is such that TV isn't recog— nized by not only the departments but by the school itself as being important enough for dedicating a person's full time to it, and that a teacher should have total release time when he is working on TV. IV INITIAL SURVEY QUESTIONS The purpose of the initial survey questions was to obtain background data on each person, his initial impressions of the other team—member, and his understanding of the roles to be played by himself and the other team-member. The intial survey questions were answered separately by the instructor and the producer—director after their first two pre-production meetings and before beginning actual pro— duction of the series. Besides answering the questions, each respondent was invited to include any other pertinent comments he cared to make. Although the instructor's and the producer—director's answers were made independently, the reader will find them listed together under each question to allow for comparative evaluation of their respective comments. For the most part, the instructor's answers are very brief, describing only what the question asked for. His answers were submitted in writing. The director's answers were recorded on audio tape, which would account for their verbosity and oral structure. They have been edited some- what to omit incomplete sentences without deleting pertinent information. 27 28 INITIAL SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE QUESTION: What is your present age? Estimate the age of your colleague. INSTRUCTOR: My present age is 48. The age of my colleague may be around 30. PRODUCER-DIRECTOR: My present age is 29. I will be 30 in May. I estimate my colleague's age to be in his early 50's; more accurate estimate would be 53. QUESTION: What previous experience have you had in the field of instructional television? INSTRUCTOR: I have been involved with this TV course for two years. PRODUCER-DIRECTOR: My experience began in the Junior College in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Milwaukee Institute of Tech— nology, where I was enrolled in a two—year technical course in television production. Upon graduation I was employed by Michigan State University as a cameraman on the production staff. I was employed here in the year 1963, September. I was the first staff cameraman put on closed circuit television. I worked on the produc— tion staff as a cameraman for approximately two years. I transferred from production to engineering and worked as a television tape operator and engineer. I held that position for another two years during which time I pick— ed up a Bachelor of Arts Degree in TV and Radio Produc- tion. Upon graduation in June, 1968, the following fall 29 I was put on the production staff again with the title of producer-director. QUESTION: What is your general background in regards to your profession? INSTRUCTOR: I have taught geography for eight years. PRODUCER-DIRECTOR: The last year and a half I have been re— sponsible for numerous courses, and I have only worked with geography one other term and that was Fall of 1969. QUESTION: What personal characteristics (personality) do you feel will contribute to or hinder your relationship with your colleague? INSTRUCTOR: I feel that all I require is that he knows his job and that we get on well together; in other words, see and understand one another's problems. PRODUCER—DIRECTOR: I think I am an amiable type person. I can get along with most anybody. I don't mind being told I am wrong. I do appreciate when people think or might accept any suggestions that I might make to them. I haven't had any trouble with any of the instructors I have dealt with so far in closed circuit television. Some slight misunderstandingsbut none of them led to a complete blow-up where we couldn't at least sit down and talk out our problems. I don't think I was ever put on the carpet because an instructor went to my immediate supervisor and told him I wasn't functioning in the 30 proper role or that I did to some extent get out of line. I think that personally I can get along with most anybody. QUESTION: What are your impressions of your colleague's characteristics? INSTRUCTOR: He seems to know his job well, is amiable and eager to see that the course runs smoothly. He is help- ful in collecting new material for use in the course. PRODUCER—DIRECTOR: I look at him as a person who can accept suggestions, but I realize also that he has worked with two other people. He feels he has command of the infor- mation available to him. He worked in developing the course originally, so I think he is pretty much tied to the status guo. I don't know that he will allow me to do or make many changes in this, and I don't know that that's all that important. I will explain later why this wouldn't be important. But I think he would be willing to accept suggestions. I would point out later some places where I made suggestions that he did not accept and the reasons that he gave for not accepting them. But again, I will have to admit that the course has been taught before; he has taught it before with different people and it's a matter of him thinking he has to break me in to his way of thinking and that I am to accept most of what was done before and try to stay with this status guo. 31 QUESTION: Define what you consider to be the individual roles for an instructor and a director. What should you contribute in keeping with that role? INSTRUCTOR: As instructor, I feel that it is my responsi- bility to see that the material of the course is taught effectively to the students. The task of the TV direc— tor is to assist me in doing this as best possible through the medium of TV. I have to rely on him to plan and operate the technical aspects of the TV presen- tation, and I have to rely on his judgment as to what will or will not be effective when shown on the TV screen. PRODUCER-DIRECTOR: I think my role in this relationship is to be the mechanics man. I certainly am not qualified as a contents specialist in this area. I look at my role as being somewhat of a resource gatherer, but again, I cannot do too much unless it is requested of me. I can make some suggestions; but unless he gives me specific problems in areas where he is having trouble and asks me to try and find visual material or support for this, there isn't much I can do on my own. I see his role as being that of course producer; my role as a producer-director and my title here doesn't really hold that function because the instructor is the main produc— er on the program. He has to decide what content is to be taught; he has to decide what pace the students should be learning. I can't make that decision for him. 32 Again, to repeat, I see my role as being a course co— ordinator, a person to try and put his content into some meaningful visual presentations to add only those things which will enhance the teaching quality of what's being broadcast or being recorded. What should I do to again contribute in keeping with that role, and I guess the only thing I can say there is to c00perate with him the best I can, make suggestions when I have them, hopefully get his acceptance in making those suggestions, to cooperate with him as fully as I can. If he needs something and it is available to me or if there are ways I can get it, it's my job to go out and do that for him. INSTRUCTOR-DIRECTOR PRODUCTION MEETINGS There were two production meetings scheduled every week just prior to the taping of the lessons. As previously men— tioned by both the instructor and the director, these meetings lasted only about twenty to twenty-five minutes in length. Since the instructor scheduled these meetings immediately be— fore the lecture, they were conducted in part while the par— ticipants were enroute to the lecture hall. This left very little preceding time in the director's office to accumulate the required production material; hence only three production meetings were recorded on audio tape. Since two of these were too brief and inconsequential to merit inclusion, only one meeting is reported here. This production meeting was typical of the other meetings between the instructor and the director. This production meeting took place about three weeks into the quarter or after about five or six lessons had been com— pleted. By this time it was realized that the existing tele- vision scripts would have to be revised for the remainder of the lessons, but there is no mention in the transcript of do- ing this or of attempting to construct future lesson plans. It should be noted that most of the production meetings were mainly concerned with the immediate lesson for the day and 33 3A and very little time was devoted to future lessons. The first part of the meeting was held in the video tape room in order to view possible inserts for future lessons and was not recorded on audio tape. Following this viewing session, both the instructor and the director continued the meeting in the director's office, and this was recorded on audio tape. In his opening statement, the director clarifies why the first part of the meeting was not recorded. DIRECTOR: During the meeting I did not get a chance to get the recorder started because much of what we did was done in the video tape room. Looking through the out— line I found that after transferring those films I ordered, we had one good insert that could be useful in today's lessons; and I wanted to make sure that he had a chance to preview it because he had to do narration over it. I don't think we have much more than twenty minutes to get ready, look at all the rest of the inserts, and talk about editing some tapes. I just found here a re- port on the latest economic life based on number of attendances in the assessment of developing nations' own future. INSTRUCTOR: We had a section already on the tin industry. I wonder if it came from that same thing. DIRECTOR: I am not sure. Now another thing I figured out was why we had all these outline problems. And it I. _.r .5W‘Il‘7‘r'fid,lr.fi 35 just happened that Larry Stone, the original director of the series, came up here the other day, and I caught him, and it was when this thing originally went into production that two days and then three days and changed back to two days. INSTRUCTOR: That's right. DIRECTOR: I went back and checked the records and that's right. Anyway, we can do one of two things. I think the basic first thing we should worry about is the Sahara situation and then from that go to the one with all the little things on it because that's probably going to be the hardest one to pin point what we want because I will have to transfer the film segment to video tape again. INSTRUCTOR: OK, fine. The Sahara one should be pretty easy because it's just the beginning and we needn't go further than that. DIRECTOR: Do you think that when I pull that stuff off of there, we can release that tape? Cause everybody is jumping up and down. I have too much tape tied up with this thing. INSTRUCTOR: OK, yes. DIRECTOR: But I don't know for our purposes, I think we got what we want off of it. . ,..- I? ”A '.-:" 36 INSTRUCTOR: You mean, which one is that? DIRECTOR: The long version. After we have taken off what we want of it. INSTRUCTOR: Oh yes, sure. We won't need to keep it. DIRECTOR: OK, now what if in fact Trindell or somebody else comes along, and then we're in trouble.1 INSTRUCTOR: Yah, I don't know about that. DIRECTOR: I know they are going to yell and scream. I'll keep these things as long as I can, but I know someday they are going to say, look we need them back again. So for the time being, we'll keep them. INSTRUCTOR: As far as I'm concerned, once I have extracted what I want, that's enough; but you are right, somebody else might want something. But if we start catering, you know, for potential needs in the future, we may be storing up tapes for years without ever anybody using them, and we won't be very popular. DIRECTOR: We're not very popular every time we ask for something. No, we don't have any tapes to do that, but they do it anyway. I think we'll run down to the tape TOOTH. l Trindell is the alternate instructor for this course and is the scheduled instructor Spring Quarter. 37 INSTRUCTOR: OK, fine. DIRECTOR: I'm not going to take this tape recorder with us. (Meeting interrupted.) OK, where were we? (Both agreed to another insert into the script at this point.) Deserts we were going to use, to the shot of the fence which takes that down to a minute or two, then erosion :3 .-—-— wasn't very good at all. A I INSTRUCTOR: No. DIRECTOR: Earthquakes, that's another one we tied together. MT .. T. “.3767. .W1w-t-JI‘KQRIRW. Machu Picchu Ruins use about a minute of it; and the hurricane, we tie that together some how; and the auto assembly line, we don't really care about that. Wonder— ful thing, I'll have to put that in order. Wish I had a secretary. I'm going to have to see about that. INSTRUCTOR: That's the answer if you can get one. Now last week we got to Lesson 5, and I didn't start the review of the tropical climate. That's the first one. DIRECTOR: Right. I held out all those supers that were not used. Now what will we stick in here? Are there any inserts that can go in? INSTRUCTOR: Now if we can get to Lesson 6, and I think we probably will get to the beginning of Lesson 6 when I talk about these clearings, and this is when that in~ sert of the Amazon rain forest comes in. It's a very short one. VI INSTRUCTOR AND PRODUCERFDIRECTOR INTERVIEWS The following interviews were conducted by the author during the week of mid—term examinations. Interviews at this time, it was felt, could ascertain what pattern of com— munication had been established between the instructor and producer-director, what accomplishments might be noteworthy, I I what problems might have arisen, and what plans might have i been formulated for the remainder of the quarter. Separate interviews were conducted with each subject. These took place in private offices, free from interruptions. They were recorded on audio tape. In transcribing from tape to the printed records reproduced below, some minor editing was done to omit verbiage and improve continuity. Some questions, prepared in advance, were asked of both respondents. Other questions were initiated during each interview to clarify some of the answers given and to obtain information pertinent to the respondent's particular role. In addition, each interviewee was invited to volunteer what— ever else he considered relevant to the study. Because of these variations, the interviews do not par— allel each other sufficiently to allow for pairing answers as was done in Chapter IV. 38 39 INSTRUCTOR INTERVIEW QUESTION: What is your present work or teaching load and does it affect the time spent on this production? INSTRUCTOR: My present teaching load this term is the two TV lectures per week, and I have no other teaching com— mitments this term. I have full-time to work on this particular course. This is an arrangement we started in the department about a year ago when this course originated in order to give the instructor the extra time necessary to handle this type of course. QUESTION: Approximately how many production meetings have been held, both prior to the start of the series and during the quarter? INSTRUCTOR: It's rather difficult to answer this. In terms of this particular term, I think there were probably two meetings before we started, and we have a meeting every day prior to the TV lecture. The reason we have so few is that much of the general structure of this course was set up over a year ago, and we're still continuing pretty much within the same format with a lot of the same meetings during ticular several We had at least at these. materials. We've had one or two extra the term to look at materials, in par— films for integration into the series. a couple of hours when we met to look IF IEfiW‘ji-Im.- M. 121‘.“me It? s." “ I I E 4" .55 ~ ’Im IIO QUESTION: Approximately how long have the production meet- ings lasted, the ones just prior to the lecture? INSTRUCTOR: Twenty to twenty-five minutes. QUESTION: How important have these meetings been to you in preparing new material or revising old material for the production? 11 r I A mill INSTRUCTOR: The two meetings we had to look at new material were useful because we selected some material which we not only used this term but other material which we will use again in the future. The shorter meetings before we would actually go on the air are generally to make sure we both know what we're going to do and that we have the material on hand for that particular lecture, and we'll make decisions about material we might use or insert in a future lecture. QUESTION: Do you feel that you are spending an adequate amount of time in preparing your portion of the mater— ial for the lecture? INSTRUCTOR: I think so, because I also do some of this at home or in the library researching, looking for new material to use including maps, graphics, etc. QUESTION: What would you say your average preparation time was for each TV lecture? Al INSTRUCTOR: I would say probably the short period I spend before I go on the air is about the average time be— cause most of this material I already had collected from previous quarters. I have just been adding new material and dropping some of the obsolete material, but not on a very large scale. The new film strips integrated into some of the lectures constituted the major changes. Apart from that, I re-organized the order of the lectures somewhat because of a new text— book we're using and put in a little new material, but ; I this I did in a relatively short period of time. QUESTION: What would you gpess is the average time of prep— aration of your colleague? INSTRUCTOR: When I arrive there, he usually has most of the material ready. He,therefore, works ahead. He goes up to the files and pulls out the necessary visual aids we use, and he generally has most of the slides sorted out before I arrive, so he has prepared beforehand. How long he begins before I arrive, I don't know. Most of the time that I am there, we discuss the material as we're going to use it and decide what order we will use it in and discuss any problems with integration of a particular slide into something I am going to say. He occasionally looks at film inserts before he lets me see them. A2 QUESTION: Would you change your time spent in preparation if needed? INSTRUCTOR: I would think there would be a case for doing this if we were going to restructure the course, and I have some intention of changing some things the next time I teach the course,which might need some consider- I} able restructuring. But again, a lot of this I can do 'mn: myself. The only things I need to know now, because I have a fair amount of experience with this, is whether certain Visual aids can in fact be used successfully . _I or not. We've had problems; for example, I selected what I thought was a nice slide, but in black and white on the screen it looked awful. I selected a map which I thought would be good; but when we put it on the screen, we found no one could read it. So, I need his assistance, once I've collected the material, in review— ing it and making suggestions on its feasibility. QUESTION: Would you recommend fewer production meetings of longer duration, or maintain the same schedule as this quarter? INSTRUCTOR: I would like to leave it on that basis, because in this way both of us have things fresh in our minds when we enter the classroom. We tried before doing this a day or two in advance, and we found we couldn't just walk in and do it. We had to spend time just prior to 143 the lecture in reviewing the material. So from the point of view of long range planning, perhaps a longer meeting held less frequently is fine; but from the point of view of the actual day-to—day operation of this, I think it's essential to meet just prior to the lecture. FE; QUESTION: Does your colleague offer any suggestions on how fight to improve methods of program planning or methods of A instructing? ’ I INSTRUCTOR: He comments on items and suggests whether be e”" thinks they were effective or not, and I rely on his judgment as a TV specialist. It's impossible for me to tell sometimes if what I am using is effective or not. For example, this term for the first time we used some short films which I had to narrate. I had to ask him if he remembered what point the film faded out because we edited these films to a certain extent. I couldn't remember, and he did. He'll comment afterwards. For example, I didn't think I did a particularly good job on the remarks I made, and he said it looked better than I thought it did. So, I do rely on him considerably for his comments and perhaps this is another point I should make. Usually after each lecture, we talk for five or ten minutes on the lecture and discuss its effectiveness. IIII QUESTION: Do you feel there is any feeling ongyourppart or the producer—director'sApart of beingian inferior member of this team? INSTRUCTOR: I don't think so. I don't see why there should be. He has his job to do, which I don't think I could do, and I've got my job to do, and he couldn't do it. .. -—1:—-1‘4 . "r "' I think this is one of those situations where two people of different skills and abilities combine for effectiveness. 1* m7-.. - 9 I I I. 9 E , .k' to c. on'o'oo a o 0. 1'. De 0 're .0 — ing as a team? INSTRUCTOR: Oh yes. I don't feel that I'm dictating to him what he should do. I have to, to a certain extent, in that it's my ultimate responsibility for what goes on the air. If he says, "Well, I don't think that's very suitable," and I say, "Well, I've got to say it or I've got to show them this; otherwise, I can't make my pointj' well, he'll go along with it. I think in this case we understand one another quite well. QUESTION: As far as the TV portion of this is concerned, does your colleague acceptAyour contribution and criti- cisms about the technical portion of the series? INSTRUCTOR: I make suggestions; for example, if I have a particular map and only want one part of it shown, I 145 usually point this out; or if he shows the whole map and I only want part of it, I try to indicate to him during the lecture that he should focus on one part; and I point out to him that there are certain visuals which I require to be used in a particular way. But again, we usually discuss this beforehand and he usually sefisthe point. But I usually ask him which is the best way to show anything specific. So I think it is defin- itely a matter of mutual cooperation. QUESTION: To your knowledge, are there apy undue pressures from either the Closed Circuit TV Department or from the Geography Department concerning this series? INSTRUCTOR: No, none at all. The only interest on the part of the department is to make it a successful course, be- cause it is a very important one; but I'm left complete— ly in charge of how it's handled. The department makes no suggestions. There have been talks about things like using the tapes for other terms but, again, no pressure has been put on me to do this. I'm allowed to do what I want. QUESTION: Have you had a chance to evaluate any of the pro- grams prior to this interview? INSTRUCTOR: No, I haven't. I have meant to. I was supposed to do this last week, but I had to cancel the meeting because quite urgent business came up. I have looked at 1' 1.7:! .‘m. Wail—rz' . '5 -.y rut-r ‘ U6 them before from previous terms. I haven't really changed things much. I find it rather difficult to evaluate myself on TV. It's a rather subjective type of thing. I usually let other peOple decide whether it's good or bad. QUESTION: During your production meetings, have you had apy T3 specific unsolvable problems that you've carried over ; ‘Ifi to future meetings? INSTRUCTOR: I can't think of any. We've occasionally come 4 I to parts in the script where I would say, "It would be ; nice if we had a picture of this or a film strip," and "This is something we'll have to look out for in the future," and "This has turned up." For example, this happened right at the beginning of this term. For some time I had wanted a particular sequence on film, and we didn't have it; and just by luck at the beginning of the term, a CBS special was broadcast with exactly the sequence we wanted, so we taped it and put it into the course at the right time. But there's been very few things that have had to be postponed. QUESTION: Has your opinion changed about the role of the in— structor or producer-director because of this series? INSTRUCTOR: No, I don't think so, but I think that I should point out that I find the role of the producer—director changed a little from when I first began. When I first QUESTION: 147 began doing this series on TV, I was very ignorant of the possibilities of TV or even how the thing should be done, and I worked with another producer-director, who was with the CCTV Department a couple of years ago, on setting this series up. I found I was very much in the situation of being a pupil with a master who was showing me how to do everything, and now I've lost this feeling. I know pretty well the whole sequence of events. I know what is taking place and how it happens; before this was all a big mystery to me. So I would feel that I'm work- ing now with someone who really hasn't much new things he can tell me. He comes up with occasional ideas which I hadn't thought of, but in terms of the use of the med— ium I feel there's not too much more I can learn from the producerndirector. In the beginning this was a very different matter. So I think my relationship with the producer-director has changed over a period of the last several years. lationship to the communication between the instructor and the producer-director? INSTRUCTOR: Oh I think so, very much so. I had a previous experience one term with another producerzdirector who I felt was slow at times to follow what I was trying to do. And because we have sort of a rough script we go by, I try to keep things in order,if possible,so that DoAyou feel that the production success has any re- 148 ~ visuals will come up in order. Sometimes a change has to be made, and I feel that this produceredirector is quick at picking these things up where as this other person wasn't. Occasionally you get into a bit of trouble, so I feel in this way this is very important. I think the producer-director should be quick to under- stand the problems of the lecturer if he gets in a cer— tain situation where he's forced to change the order of materials he's using; and likewise, the lecturer has to be aware of the problems he's setting for the producer- director. He can get the producer—director tangled in a knot very quickly if he doesn't watch out. I think both sides have got to have an understanding of one another. I think we've achieved this. I think we know pretty well what we're both capable of and how we work. QUESTION: Have there been any personality conflicts between you and your colleague? INSTRUCTOR: I don't think so. There's nothing he's done which has in any way annoyed me. He's very keen to make this series successful. In the beginning, I thought perhaps he sometimes dwelt a little long on some of the points he was trying to make, but this was because he didn't know me too well and he didn't know the extent of my experience. But this was no problem. As far as I know, I don't get in his hair. I'm occasionally a little late for the production meetings, but generally hq I know if I allow myself to be late there generally isn't too much to be done for that particular lecture. I have a feeling that on one or two occasions this has bothered him, but I don't think it does any longer. At least, I hOpe it doesn't. So far we've had no problem at all. We've always been ready in plenty of time. PRODUCERnDIRECTOR INTERVIEW QUESTION: After working on this series for over half a quar— 3 ter, do you still feel that this course is designed for g f r...— ,_, TIL? PRODUCERuDIRECTOR: The course as it is taught could not be taught in the classroom the same way——simply because most of the visual material that he uses is not appro— priate to use in the classroom (even up to twenty stu— dents) because they wouldn't be able to see the material. The course is still pretty much of a straightforward lecture. It's not really designed for TV. It's not a TV production course as we think of for TV where the thing is fully scripted and a lot of time spent prepar— ing. Now the instructor did spend a lot of time with other directors filling up files with visual materials to use here on TV, but I think the course isn't what we consider to be the true TV course. They are working on it, and I don't know what the outcome will be. Let me 50 add this: the course for lastterm, fall term, they de- cided to use this lecture in the studio. At that time, it was my understanding that they were going to try to produce it and make a TV series out of it to be used for, say, an indefinite period of time. Geography is taught and the level it's taught at, the sophomore level, it doesn't really change that much. Current information isn't really that important to what is be- ing taught here. So that you could record it and hope— fully use that tape for a playback situation for one year, two years, or indefinitely as far as I can tell, until they start bringing current events into it that would in some way date it. But the way I see it, this doesn't happen too much and it could be produced and saved. When they went to the studio, I thought that was what they were going to do. I find out now that they aren't going to do it that way. They are not going to try to improve on what was done last fall term. It's going to be considered a standup, teach a live session, recorded for playback for classes; and willcontinue that way from term to term. So the pressure to do a really good job just isn't there; because if you make a mistake, it can be talked about; and content can change; and lesson plans don't have to be that accurate because you can always piCKIMDHEXt time what you left off the time before; and there really isn't a hard fast rule for 51 how much content or what content is to be put into any given lecture. QUESTION: Since they are not_planning on keeping the tapes for future classwork, do you feel that your colleague is spending enough time in preparation for each indi- vidual lecture or the entire series as a whole? PRODUCER-DIRECTOR: The course was set up at least two years ago to run. I personally feel that we don't spend enough time together either using existing outlines that were used before so that I can really understand what we are going to do. There are times when he comes in with roughly a half an hour from when I see him to the time when we are putting the program on the air. This gives us just time to shuffle visual materials around. I usually try to get started on that ahead of time, just by looking through the outline and pulling what I am sure of; but sometime references to visuals-- say maps of Asia--I'm not sure what map of Asia because there are several maps. There's enough material that sometimes it's confusing. A sequence of slides might be five slides; and which slides? I only know this after he walks in the door and puts numbers on the out- lines so I know in our slide catalog 0-15 is what is called for here and the next slide will be B-l9 or whatever it is. This is about all we have time to do before we go over there. It is very difficult getting 52 him to set up time for meetings, to look at the program as it was done and criticize it and try KDthink ahead a little bit. This morning, fortunately, today's produc- tion, he got here early and we spent most of the time talking about what was going to happen between now and say the next two weeks,because I was minus outlines that I should have had. He's starting to change things and,say,pull stuff from outline say 15 to put into Lesson 10, and what it does is just adds for mass con— fusion, so I might end up going over there with outlines from four or five different lessons and jumping from one lesson to the next lesson in the middle of a page to the top of the page to the bottom of the next page and it gets a little bit confusing. This all should have been set up ahead of time. What he thinks he's going to do is look at this and try to put it in some order so that if he comes over next time, we will have a good idea of where to go. Now what I have tried to do with the outlines so far is to put all pertinent numbers and notations in it so that it is meaningful to me, but I know that without taking these things and retyping them and trying to set it up simple as possible, if anybody else has to do this course with him as the professor, they are going to have a difficult time understanding my notes. I'm not sure if I should just start retyping these things or wait for him to give me a new outline and then fill in the information necessary from my 53 point of view. QUESTION: Looking back before the quarter began when we first discussed this and you felt the series was_pretty much taken care of since it had been done before on TV, and you felt there wouldn't be too much interaction be- tween you and the professor; so kind of looking back before the quarter began, now what would you have done or changed in preparing for the lecture series, what could or should your colleague have done? PRODUCER-DIRECTOR: Looking back,I think I could have prob— ably put more pressure on the instructor to have a better outline or a more current outline to use for the series. I could maybe have pulled this off if I had stretched a point that if I have these things available to me, and given the time to look them over and think about it a little, I could have probably brought in more visual material to help support some of the points that he was trying to state. Now there are times when we go over there to do things that we will forget things be— cause the outlines are so screwed up that even reading down through them you will miss supers or miss slides. I think that maybe if I had stressed the point to him that what I had available to me was really a poor set of outlines and that, because of this, we would be work— ing from day to day pretty much at the mercy of what he thinks needs to be done. Like I said before, we were 5A chopping up outlines, so I think preplanning a little bit and getting things in a little better order would have made some sense to me. I'm not a total idiot, but when you only have a half hour to talk with the pro— fessor before you are ready to go, it makes things a little hard. I don't know the strains and stresses he's under. They have meetings over in that depart— ment on Tuesday afternoon for the faculty and really foul up any of our talking on Tuesdays and on Thurs- days. Unless I really get to him ahead of time, it's hard to set up any kind of meeting to talk about things like this. But again like I said, better planning ahead of time as far as getting outlines of what was going to be in the course so I could have done more to bring in outside materials. Now I have done this to some extent in bringing in new maps, charts, supers, or bringing in some films to be used in this course. But again, a lot of that arrived late, too late to fit into this term. I try to add visual material to it as I get them, but again without having an outline I don't know just what things would be pertinent. QUESTION: Let's look at some of the positive attitudes. What do you feel are some of the good things that have_ come out of your working with the professor; in other words, while you have been working and discussing_ things in your production meetings, have you been able 55 to work together and come up with positive aSpects phat have really helped in the_production of this series? PRODUCERuDIRECTOR: Well, I think that the professor is very willing to accept any help I can be to him. He doesn't try to knock me in the head every time I try to suggest something to him. Again, there just isn't enough think time working with the man, but he accepts things very easily. He doesn't get rattled. We can go over there even whalhe gets here quite late and it's just a matter of shoving things together. We can go over there and he is completely confident that everything is going to be done right. Today for example, we had about twenty slides to integrate in our program, and I asked him about what each picture was,and what it meann and where it came in the outline. We happened to hit on one that showed the agricultural countryside being taken over somewhat by the factories and industrial manufacturing. That was important on that one slide; when we used it, he talked for quite awhile about it and then started making other points that weren't pertinent about the slide. So I took it off and got back to him. Normally when you are done with a slide on that projector, you've got to lap to the next one and once you do that you can't back the thing up. You've got to jump up out of your seat, go over and crank it around to get the slide back again. Well, I knew he didn't make the point he 56 wanted to make about the slide, so I just waited. He said, "Now if we can have that slide back." Well, luckily it was there. I went to it. And afterwards, he came up in the back of the room and said, "Gee, it was a good thing that that slide was there when I want- ed it, wasn't it?" I explained to him what the problems would be if, in fact, I had gone ahead and missed it or thought he was done with it. He's pretty good about calling attention to the next picture, but to some ex— tent that makes him say things that he doesn't have to say. I don't have any real good visual cues set up be— tween him and I, and you never really know when he's done talking about a picture. He doesn't tell me ahead of time exactly what he is going to say about each pic- ture. I don't know and it makes him use up a lot of his time just giving me cues for the next picture. There isn't a good script, so it is hard to say when he should roll the film unless he gives you a definite lead-in. He's good about doing that; and usually when he's done, he'll go on and not backtrack. He seems to accept the job I have and understands a lot about what I'm supposed to be doing. He tries to make things easier for me, but the job just entails so much that there isn't a whole heck of a lot he can do. _QUESTION: How many production meetings have been held both prior to the start of the series and during the quarter? 57 PRODUCEReDIRECTOR: We had one production meeting prior to the start of the series and we had a production meeting, if you can call it that, just prior to every lecture; and they ranged in length from twenty minutes to about forty-five minutes maximum. I'd say they averaged about twenty—five minutes each. We had one production meeting that lasted four hours and others had been scheduled that were canceled.1 QUESTION: How important have these meetings been to you in preparing new material or revising the old material? Has your colleague presented you the material in time for the production? PRODUCERWDIRECTOR: The instructor really didn't do much up- dating of the existing material. The only updating was the addition of several film clips. Much of this up— dating was done on my part. I found these things, or- dered them, and instigated their use in the course. The meetings were important as far as editing these film clips. What production meetings we had were used to discuss this new material and how to use it in the course . QUESTION: What is your average time spent on preparation for each lecture? 1 This production meeting was held prior to beginning the study. 58 PRODUCER-DIRECTOR: I try to spend one hour prior to each lecture and use the existing outlines to assemble the information I felt went along with the outline. In a lot of cases this was difficult to do because the material was unlisted or he specified something else other than what was on the outline. The things I couldn't accumulate waited until he arrived to assemble them. In some cases we missed some material because I didn't know where the material was. I also had trouble in knowing what film inserts were to be used and when. Several times the instructor has walked in and stated we would use certain material that I knew nothing about. QUESTION: Has your colleague attempted to help in the solu— tion of problems concerning production? PRODUCER—DIRECTOR: He's made an effort to get here on time, but doesn't worry about it if he's late. He's basically a classroom instructor and originally felt that this would be televising a classroom lecture, so difficulties occur because of that fact. He's not used to planning the length of the lecture and feels that where we leave off today we'll pick up from that point next time. I don't think there was any one time that we completed what we set out to do. We always tried to pad a little in case he finished too early. This meant taking extra material to the lecture every time. 59 QUESTION: Concerning the production meetings, would you recommend fewer production meetings of longer duration or more production meetings of shorter duration and why? PRODUCER—DIRECTOR: I'd probably want to spend at least one term ahead of schedule talking with the instructor, going to his classroom and trying to understand what his goal was. There were times during the term that I tried to set up longer meetings to discuss some of the things we were doing and critique what we had fin— ished, but these meetings never camaabout. I personally evaluated some of the programs. I think a recommenda— tion I would make is that he come at least one hour prior to lecture time in order to discuss the entire program. But all we ever averaged was about twenty to twenty—five minutes. The longer production meetings would have been much more satisfactory as far as I was concerned. _QUESTION: Does your colleague offer any suggestions on how to improve methods of the program planning? PRODUCER—DIRECTOR: No, I don't think the instructor was ever critical of what I did or what we did in the course or prior to it. I asked him several times if he felt I wasn't keeping with him or distracting him, but he never criticized what I did. I in turn offered 60 suggestions, and he usually accepted them and tried to adopt them, but would forget little things; but in general, he followed my suggestions. The mistakes that were made didn't amount to much to really worry about. QUESTION: Does your colleague respect your knowledge and contribution for the improvement of this series? PRODUCER—DIRECTOR: The suggestions I did make he accepted only when he felt they wouldn't interfere with his teaching method or when he felt the material was nec- essary for the course. His decisions usually prevailed. It didn't disturb me when he didn't agree, and he did listen to my suggestions and consider them. QUESTION: Is there any feeling of being an inferior member of the instructor-producer director team? PRODUCER—DIRECTOR: He realizes that I have a job to perform. No, I don't think either one of us feels this. We both get along and respect each other's opinion. He is the instructor and has the final say on any decisions made regarding the production. QUESTION: Are there any undue pressures from either the Closed Circuit Television Department or from the Geogra— phy Department concerning this series? PRODUCER-DIRECTOR: There were no pressures from the Geogra— phy Department during the quarter. There was a limited 61 amount from the Closed Circuit Television Department in doing this production. I feel the Geography Department does not want to change this series. They are willing to continue the lectures every quarter without any major revision and a limited amount of minor changes. I'm not sure this is a good use of TV, but it does reach their large student enrollment. The only thing that I could state as pressure from the Geography Department is that, Spring Quarter, 1969, we tried to get them to tape the series and save the tapes for future quarters, which they decided against. I think each instructor that teaches this course wants it taught his way and will not use another professor's tape or material. QUESTION: What is your present work or teaching load, and how does it affect the time spent on this production? PRODUCER-DIRECTOR: I am responsible for two other regularly scheduled productions. One, a typing series which was taped in the evening. In addition to this, I did several specials for the College of Education, several accounting lectures, and several medical lectures. We don't have the staff to devote one individual full-time to any given series. I feel that, had I been completely free to work on Geography, that it wouldn't have been any more effective. The instructor's time was so limit- ed that we wouldn't have been able to meet many more times than we did. I would have gone out of my way to 62 schedule extra meetings if he could have scheduled meetings with me. I don't feel that my work load had any influence on this series. QUESTION: Has your opinion chapged about the role of the instructor or the producer—director because of this series? PRODUCER~DIRECTORz Not to any great extent. I still view the instructor as being the content specialist. I also view him in the role of the producer. Because of the type of live series this was, I feel he really was the producer, and all I was was a production assistant to him. I still had all the directing responsibilities, and this was primarily a technician's position. QUESTION: Could better planning during the production meet- ings have alleviated some of the confusion before the lectures? PRODUCERsDIRECTOR: I'm sure if we would have had more time, better planning would have helped; but we only had enough time during the meetings to gather the material for that lecture. VII TERMINAL QUESTIONNAIRE Following the production of the final lesson in the series, the instructor and the director were given a set of questions to be answered prior to the end of Winter Quarter, 1970. These questions and answers were used as a comparison to previous questions and answers received at the beginning and mid—term of the series to determine any changes in atti— tudes and relationship of the instructor and the director and any changes in the production of the series that might have occurred after the mid—term interview. Again, the instructor and the director were not limited to answering only those questions listed in the question— naire but were encouraged to contribute any additional infor- mation concerning their relationship or the production in general. The instructor recorded his answers in writing which would account for the brevity of his answers. The director's answers were recorded on audio tape and were edited for the same reason they were in the previous chapters. INTERVIEW AT TERMINATION OF QUARTER QUESTION: Were there sufficient meetings held forApreplan— ningpprograms? Elaborate, 63 6A INSTRUCTOR: Due to the fact that much preliminary work had already been done two years ago, preplanning meetings were reduced in number to two a week with occasional extra meetings for review of new material. I feel that these were adequate in number and duration. PRODUCER-DIRECTOR: In my opinion, I don't feel there were ,I :Fklv-w‘ enough meetings. Most of the meetings were rushed in order to start the lecture on time. I think the in— structor felt we put enough time in because he wasn't concerned about the number of meetings and usually fl: ._ ,. arrived just early enough to prepare the lecture for that day. I'm sure the instructor was pleased with the results of the lecture series. QUESTION: What could youeor your colleague have done to im— prove your relationship_and the communication between you? INSTRUCTOR: I think that we both had a good relationship and can suggest no improvements. With experience on both sides of previous TV courses, we understood easily the problems involved on both sides. PRODUCER~DIRECTORz Probably go out and get drunk together. Other than that I would have been happier with more pro— duction meetings and longer in length. That's not to say the series would have been better because of it, but 65 I would have felt more secure in my role of director. QUESTION: Redefine your interpretation of the roles of director and the instructor as you now see them. INSTRUCTOR: I still think that the director's job is mainly a technical one. The instructor must supply the mater— ial for the course and design it himself. He must, however, check with the director to ascertain if his material is suitable for the medium. The director may suggest drafting certain material or using different material, but again these suggestions should be made on technical grounds. PRODUCER—DIRECTOR: Under the situation that we have where the instructor is on camera talent and is responsible to the student and his department for teaching the course, he is the content specialist. I don't see the producer- director's role as a producer-director. What it amounts to is a production assistant for the instructor. He is more of a resource person and a television technician. QUESTION: Has your opinion changed in regards to your person- ality and that of your colleague? If so, how? INSTRUCTOR: No, my views on the director and myself remain the same. PRODUCER—DIRECTOR: At first, my impression of the instructor -n— H'ar‘ an... '2 um 66 was that he was aloof. I also recognized the fact that because he had done the series before with other pro- ducer-directors, that he was more familiar with the TV series than I was. It took me a while to understand his style and I'm not sure that I ever did. As the term developed, I considered him a nice guy, one who I could talk to. He seemed a little aloof at the begin— ning but changed after I got to know him. I don't think I gave the appearance of the show biz attitude. I tried to be a little bit of a showman and tried to point out things that would be interesting to students. Sometimes he didn't accept these; and again, because he's the content specialist and responsible for the course. It was his prerogative. I tried to be amiable during the quarter, and I don't think we had any serious con— flicts between us. QUESTION: Was this production series a success in terms of ypur relationship with your colleague? Explain. INSTRUCTOR: I felt that we cooperated well and that the pro- duction was a success in these terms. Whether it was the best possible geography course, is another matter. PRODUCER-DIRECTOR: If he would ever come back to do another series while I am a producer-director here, and I have the opportunity to work with him again, I'm sure it would be done a lot better. I don't think he would be 67 unhappy having to work with me again, and I wouldn't feel bad about doing the series with him again, either. I don't think there are any bad feelings between us. We were friends, and each did his own part in the pro- duction of the series. We had a good working relation— ship between us. UESTION: Summarize Tour con us' e ° ‘0 — tion series. INSTRUCTOR: I think that this production series was not an isolated experience but in a chain of series. The real work on setting the course up was done two years ago; and consequently, we have less work to do now to main- tain momentum. PRODUCER—DIRECTOR: I would hope that the Geography Depart- ment would decide how much they want us to do for them. About all we do now is to help them reach a large number of students. It's a valid use of TV, but they aren't really using us to the fullest extent of our abilities. We need more time prior to the beginning of the course to prepare for the televised lecture. It would be much easier if the department would grant release time for the instructor to complete the series. The instructors really aren't given the incentive to work on TV because it is usually in addition to other work loads, and there is no extra compensation for the instructor. I think Ya 68 if the university would start recognizing TV as a teaching instrument, rather than a method of teaching more students with one instructor, and the instructor could gain recognition, we in television could do a much better job and use television instruction to its fullest potential. _.£_...,‘u’ VIII CONCLUSIONS Such conclusions as can be drawn from this study are based on less data than was initially sought. One difficulty with a study of this nature is that of obtaining a trans- scription of all of the communication that occurs between the instructor and producer-director while planning and eval— uating their mutual work. Since only one production meeting is a matter of record, and that a brief one, the following analysis is restricted mainly to the subjects' responses to questionnaires and interviews. Analysis of Available Data Personal Cogpatabilipy Question #A of the initial questionnaire was an attempt to reveal any possible incompatability between the subjects' personalities. No such incompatability was revealed, either by the answers to this question or by later responses. Each person expressed his respect for the other and cited no difficulties in getting along with him. Concept of Roles No difficulties arose through misconception of each other's roles. From the beginning, the producer—director acknowledged the instructor's ultimate responsibility for determining the course structure and content and approving 69 70 the visual aids. Since the instructor considered himself already conversant with television techniques, there was little need for the producer-director to familiarize him with these matters. This restricted the producer—director to serving primarily three functions. As a "production assistant," he sometimes suggested and procured visual mater— ials. As a "resource person," he was sometimes asked to predict the legibility of a given visual on the television tube. As a "technician," he was expected, in the instruc- ' or in other tor's words, to "follow what I am trying to do,‘ words, to show what the instructor wanted shown at the time the instructor wanted it shown. The producer-director accepted these roles and did not press to expand them. How- ever, he appears to believe that he could have performed them more effectively with more and earlier information about the instructor's intentions. Production Information The instructor was satisfied with the amount of time spent in production planning. He failed to confirm appoint- ments for special planning meetings proposed by the producer- director. He regulated the duration of regular planning meetings by how early he reported before each camera session. He seems to have assumed that, if he were ready for the session, the producer-director would also be ready and would have no further questions or suggestions. In his opinion, he provided the producer-director with sufficient information 71 to do his job. With this, however, the producer-director does not agree. The last-minute meetings provide little enough time to deter— mine what visuals will be used and how they will be arranged and cued, and no time to consider other aspects of the lesson. Earlier knowledge of the instructor's intentions would give him greater security and would allow him more opportunity to obtain pertinent visual materials. He would like an advance script with firm cues for the appearance of visuals to protect the program from the hazards of improvisa— tion. Instead of having to "shove things together" on a day- to-day basis, he feels that he should have been provided with outlines of the course and lectures prior to the actual pro- duction of the series. And, as previously mentioned, he would like to have had longer and special planning meetings with the instructor. Evaluation of the Production The instructor notes that he and the producer-director discussed the effectiveness of each lesson immediately after each camera session. Unfortunately, no record of such dis- cussions is available for analysis. One may guess, however, that, lasting only five or ten minutes as they did, they provided only enough time for general reassurance about some aspect of the performance, or for review of some error in the cueing or showing of a visual, with no opportunity to consider the design of the entire lesson, let alone that of 72 the entire series. The regular production meetings seem to have been con- cerned entirely with what will be shown during the upcoming camera session. The one production meeting recorded in this study contains no discussion of the effectiveness of preced- ing programs and no evaluation of either the instructor's or the producer-director's performance. The instructor is satisfied that the series is being done as well as can be expected. The producer—director is not. He feels that it is not taking enough advantage of the potentialities of the television medium. He would like to have it presented exclusively to the television viewer rather than as a lecture delivered to students in a "live" class— room. Instead of starting the series afresh each term with a change of instructors, he would prefer to achieve an im- proved version based on previous experience and ample plan- ning, preserving this on tape for use throughout a number of semesters. He wants each lesson scripted to avoid improvisa- tion, and proportioned to achieve its purpose in the time available without the need for "padding." Lack of Communication There is no evidence that the prodUcer—director informed the instructor of the attitudes cited in the preceding para— graph, or that he succeeded in communicating to the instruc— tor his need for longer planning sessions and for more and better advance information. In general, he tended to 73 restrict his expressed thoughts, opinions, and desires to those related to production material for the lesson at hand. In these respects, the working relationship between col- leagues fell notably short of the equal partnership recom— mended in Chapter I of this study. One can only speculate about the reasons for this lack of communication. One might attribute it to the difference of status between a professor with a Ph.D. and a part-time candidate for a master's degree. One might guess that the producer—director deferred to the instructor's seniority, equating his age with greater experience on which to base decisions. The instructor obviously possessed greater know- ledge of the subject matter; but the producer—director's relative unfamiliarity with the subject matter, his younger age, and his status as a student might have made him an appropriate subject on whom the instructor could have tested his presentations for clarity and interest, had he taken the time to do so and been willing to use the producer-director in this capacity. However, although he was willing to consider suggestions proffered by the instructor-director, he does not seem to have actively invited suggestions, including those about his pedagogical methods. Nor did he communicate to the producer- director that he had been released full—time from other teaching assignments to work on the television series. Had the producer-director realized his, he might have been more vocal about what he needed from the instructor. 7A The Need for Further Studies Impetus for this study came from two assunpdons: (1) that effective communication between the television instructor and his associated producer-director is an important factor in the success of an instructional television lesson or lesson series; (2) that, by studying the communication of many teams of in- structors and producer—directors, it should be possible to identify the most common areas of communication failure. Awareness of these areas, it was hoped, might increase the effectiveness of future production teams and enlighten the decisions of those who assign those teams and provide resour- ces for them. The single study here presented can do nothing by itself to prove those assumptions or confirm those hopes. Towards those ends it can serve only as a beginning, as a stimulus, it is hoped, for further studies. As explained earlier, the present study fell short of its original intentions in several respects. It was intended to observe the production of two different television series, each with a different production team, in order to compare and contrast the communication of these teams. The one course which proved feasible for study was not ideal, in that it inherited a format and many of its visual materials from previous semesters when it had been telecast; and since, furthermore, its instructor had conducted some of these previous offerings and was reasonably satisfied with them, there was less opportunity for the present 75 ’ producer—director to engage in the production planning. As noted at the beginning of this chapter, the desired audio recordings of all production meetings could not be obtained. Hence, the only material available for analysis (apart from the brief transcript of one production meeting) consists of responses to the author's questions. It is likely that the questions could be improved to re- duce repetitive responses and obtain a greater variety of significant information. A more standardized and objective style of questioning might make it easier for the researcher to draw conclusions, assist him in obtaining less subjective, more reliable conclusions, and permit more ready comparison between the conclusions of one study and those of another. An obvious difficulty in generalizing from such compari- sons is the great variation that exists between telecourses with respect to subject matter, course level, production re— sources, and personnel. In view of these variables and the need to control them, it may prove necessary to design nar— rower and more exacting studies than the present author has attempted. . .. , J51? BIBLIOGRAPHY ‘Afl- ‘.” m AH“ "91’ ~ IT v‘fi' BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Adams, J. C.; Carpenter, C. R.; Smith, D. R. College Teach- ing by Television. Council on Education, Washington, D. C. 1957. Benton, C. W.; Howell, W. K.; Oppenheimer, H. C.; Urrows, H. H. Television in Urban Education. F. A. Praeger Publisher, N. Y. 1969. Carpenter, C. R. New Teaching Aids. U. S. Government Print— ing Office, Washington, D. C. 1959. Cassirer, H. R. Television TeachingfiToday. UNESCO, France. 1960. Compilation. Impact of Educational Television Programs. NAEB, Urbana, Illinois. 1956: Costello and Gordon. Teaching With Television. Hastings House Publishers, N. Y. 1965. 2nd Edition. DeKorte, D. A. Television in Education and Training. Cleaver-Hume Press Ltd., London. 1967. Evans, R. I.; Smith, R. G.; Colville, W. K. The University Faculty and Educational Television. Dept. H.E.W., Houston, Texas. 1962. Fletcher, Leon C. TV's New Engagement. Fearon Publishers. San Francisco, California. 1958. Ford Foundation. Teaching by Television. Ford Foundation. 2nd Edition. 1961. Greenhill, L. P.; Sherk, H. D.; McKenzie, Betty. The Role of Production in Televised Instruction. NAEB, Urbana, Ill. 1959. Griffith, B. L.; MacLennan, D. W. Improvement of Teaching bygTelevision. University of Missouri Press, Columbia, Missouri. 196A. Koenig, H. E.; Hill, R. B. The Farther Vision. University of Wisconsin, Press. 1967. Lewis, Colby. The TV Director/Interpreter. Hastings House, N. Y. 1968. 76 77 MacLean, R. Television in Education. Methuen Educational Press Ltd., London. 1968. McBride, J. Compensation of Faculty For Appearances on Educational Television Programs. NAEB, Urbana, Ill. 1956} Meaney, J. W. Televised College Courses. Ford Foundation Publications. 1962. Newsom, C. V. A Television Policy For Education. American Council of Education. Washington, D. C. 1952. Siepmann, C. A. Television and Education in the U. S. UNESCO. 1952. Tintera, J. B. Instructor in Michigan. Michigan State Uni- versity. 1961. Weld, Art. Student and Staff Training in Educational Tele- vision Stations. NAEB, Urbana, Illinois. 1956. White, Stephen. Revolution in Teaching. "Educational Tele— vision and Films.‘r Edited by Alfred de Grazia and David A. Sohn. Bantam Matrix Editions, N. Y. 196A. Willis, B. C.; Masikeo, P., Jr.; Ericson, C. G. TV College. (No Publisher Listed) 1960. Periodicals Colle, R. D.; Albert, R. D. "College Teachers Attitudes Towards Closed Circuit TV." Audio—Visual Communication Review. Spring, 1958. Vol. 6, No. 2. Palmer, Charles. "Teacher in a Tube." Educational Screen and Audio-Visual Guide. December, 1963. Vol. A2. Reacher, J. J. "The Teacher's Role." National Association of Secondary School Principals. October, 1966. Vol. 50, No. 312. Weinberg, Stanley. "Thoughts of a TV Teacher." High Point. April, 1963. Vol. A5. Journals Barkham, M.; Chapman, L. H. Guidelines For Art Instruction Througp Television For The Elementary Schools. NCSCT, Bloomington, Ind. 1967. 78 Ed. Inguiry. NEA, Washington, D. C. 1966. Torkelson, G. M. Educational Media. Issue 1A, NEA, Washing— ton, D. C. 1968. Unpublished Lewis, C. Some Conditions Which Favor the Success of Instruc— tional Television Ventures. Michigan State University. 196A. Smith, H. Teaching to a Camera. NAEB, Urbana, Illinois. 1955. APPENDICES 79 APPENDIX A INSTRUCTIONS AND GUIDELINE FOR DIRECTOR AND INSTRUCTOR ON THE TELEVISED COURSE IN GEOGRAPHY COPY OF ACCOMPANYING LETTER The following list of questions is designed for the director and instructor as a guide for discussion of their relationship while working together on an instructional tele- vision series. These questions will be used to analyze the relationship and interaction between the director and the instructor. It is basically the subjects and processes of communication that are of prime interest. This thesis will be used solely for educational pur— poses. Names of the director and the instructor will not be used in the context of the thesis but will remain anonymous to everyone other than the author; Dr. Colby Lewis, Thesis Advisor; and Robert Mulbach, Production Coordinator for Closed Circuit Television. The director and the instructor will have the option of reading the thesis prior to its pub- lication. If there are any final statements, conclusions, or disagreements with the context of the thesis, an appendix will be included to clarify any statements made by the director, instructor or the authorT This study will terminate following the last production meeting during Winter Quarter, 1970. Prior to the end of finals' week information should be completed on Section III. I will pick up the completed Section III forms during the last of four personal prescheduled interviews. 80 It is necessary that both the director and the instruc— tor feel free to commend and criticise both their own and their colleague's performance in the communication process. This information should be considered as constructive com— ments and not meant as destructive remarks. Without these free and unbiased opinions, the thesis will not show the true contents of the director-instructor relationship. The first section of questions need be answered only once following the first production meeting. They can be left in.a sealed envelope with the secretary in the Closed Circuit Television Office. The questions and answers for Section II will be re— corded on audio tape by the director during each production meeting and turned over to me for evaluation and inclusion into the thesis. Three times during the remainder of the quarter I will contact you for a personal interview to dis— cuss any situations that are not clear to me from the re— corded production meetings. These interviews will be brief and should last approximately one hour. Following the end of the term I would like to meet with you to discuss your final views concerning the relationship shared by you and your colleague. Section III should be answered only once following the final production in the series. These questions are de- signed for general conclusions or changes of opinions re— garding your colleague or your performance. 81 If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at the Television-Radio Department. My office phone is 353-501“. DOUGLAS K. MEHLHAFF 82 APPENDIX B COPY OF QUESTIONNAIRE SECTION I QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED ONCE AFTER THE FIRST MEETING ONLY: 1. What is your present age? Estimate the age of your colleague? What previous experience have you had in the field of instructional television? What is your general background in regards to your pro— fession? What personal characteristics (personality) do you feel will contribute to or hinder your relationship with your colleague? What are your impressions of your colleague's character— istics? Define what you consider to be the individual roles for an instructor and a director. What should you contribute in keeping with that role? SECTION II THREE PERSONAL INTERVIEWS PERIODICALLY DURING THE REMAINDER OF THE QUARTER. SECTION III QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED AT THE TERMINATION OF THE QUARTER: 1. Were there sufficient meetings held for preplanning pro— grams? Elaborate. What could you or your colleague have done to improve your relationship and the communication between you? Redefine your interpretation of the roles of director and the instructor as you now see them. Has your opinion changed in regards to your personality and that of your colleague? If so, how? Was this production series a success in terms of your relationship with your colleague? Explain. 83 6. Summarize your conclusions regarding this production series. SECTION IV FINAL PERSONAL INTERVIEW AFTER COMPLETION OF THE SCHEDULE. | I III I II I I'll I III I | 3169 2746 III illllllllllll'