"is“.
:‘:I

if

r‘

t3

page
V: -; :
gr;
.4: "I

:1. ., ./
1,1rjgrqpé

1.

 

‘0 :10. CM":
~ «W'xgci as:
.W .

k:‘ ‘v '1I"
W}
V!

E, ..
A I-
4 ~ r .
40“} 13‘
. r ., .1-
.‘ut 'v
. J
.. 'L.
1‘. .
4,>.n
.(5, O 6
<f' «q. ‘

, .15“ -
‘ V . 2“:
' .3

.4»... . ~
. -- .Jl.
_‘ .

“‘1t:‘\:' ”L
M‘- . An ‘1‘“ ‘
33§PJ§GG§G1‘“

Kmagg- :m‘ ‘

M a
\J-:'

vs, ( m'

,‘ -- ’(

fizféfifi
2: ‘ ”

6:

1.557,, ”a V,
23%?"-
u - -‘ ‘
,

- . t
' ,,.-
”WV".-.
T..."-~"f
<-. r!
--,.

1
~-.-""

rt‘ '
E I‘ n
t??? “ \.J!-

‘t

‘ ‘ .
‘m»a~‘v:-

a.‘
3‘ .‘vr

#3. 3

h‘ ‘ ‘
‘ xigz'lfijnén. a
“I.“ 3 v:

I

 

' "“3? l‘ ‘
4! VI ‘1";‘1

a'azmmm

Mt

0-7639

 

Iiiitiitiiii

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled
"Right Nay/Wrong Nay" Presentations: The Use of
Common Errors in Instructional Videos for
Procedure Learning

presented by
Tom McCarthy

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

M A degree in Jeleconxnunication

 

 

Major professor

MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

L

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
Untverslty

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.

 

DATE DUE: DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

g? z 3 Q?
rm“! 1..”

r Mas“
' t

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

M31”

MSU Is An Affirmative AciiorVEqual Opportunity Institution
, 7 I if cum

 

"RIGHT WAY/WRONG WAY" PRESENTATIONS -
THE USE OF COMMON ERRORS IN INSTRUCTIONAL
VIDEOS FOR PROCEDURE LEARNING
A Production Thesis
BY
Tom McCarthy

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Telecommunications

1991

é 24/. MSX

ABSTRACT
"RIGHT WAY/WRONG WAY" PRESENTATIONS -
THE USE OF COMMON ERRORS IN INSTRUCTIONAL
VIDEOS FOR PROCEDURE LEARNING
BY
Tom McCarthy

This thesis compared two instructional presentation
formats for learning achievement and interest. The
presentation formats under examination were "right way/wrong
way" (in which a common error is presented previous to the
presentation of the correct method to achieve a task) and
"right way" (in which only the correct method to achieve a
task is demonstrated).

Three measures were used. To determine learning
achievement a recall, evaluation, and application oriented
test was constructed. To measure interest, two five-point
scales were used along with open-ended questions regarding
likability. A Production Feedback Questionnaire was used to
determine if there was any significant difference between
groups in their attitudes toward particular production
variables or segments.

The "right way/wrong way" format showed significantly
higher learning achievement. No difference in interest was

found between groups.

Accepted by the faculty of the Department of
Telecommunication, College of Communication.Arts and Sciences,
Michigan State University, in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the Master of Arts degree.

 

Director of Thesis

DEDICATION

This work is dedicated to Mary and Tom McCarthy. Without

their support, this would not have been possible.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION . . .
Statement of the Problem .
Purpose of the Study . . .
Need for this Study . . .
Definition of Terms . .
Limitations of the Study .

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . . . .

Concepts, Examples and Nonexamples

Errors . . . . . .

The Capabilities of Television for

Presentation Formats . . . . . . .

Technical Comparisons . . . . . .
'Unintended Biases .

The Use of Humor in Instructional Television .

Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . .

METHODOLOGY . . . . . .
Program Development . .
Treatment . . . . . .
Evaluation Design . .

RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
APPENDIX A (Script A - "Right Way") . .
APPENDIX B (Script B - "Right Way/Wrong
APPENDIX C (Evaluation Instrument) . .
APPENDIX D (Statistical Information) .

BI BLI OGRAPHY O 0 I o a o o o o o o o o

and Common
Instruction

O‘UI-h-F-FH

\O

55

62

82

109

114

119

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Mean test scores based (at a l9-point learning
achievement test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Table 2. Breakdown of mean test scores based on a 19-point
learning achievement test by section . . . . . . . . . 40

Table 3. One tailed t-test between groups receiving "right
way/wrong way" (experimental) and "right way" (control)

production formats (overall learning achievement) . . . 43
Table 4. Breakdown of t-tests comparing' mean scores of
experimental and control groups on a 19-point learning
achievement test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Table 5. Mean interest in video rating scores based on a
five-point interest scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Table 6. One tailed t-test between response to the interest
in video scale by experimental and control groups . . . 46

Table 7. Mean interest in subject matter rating scores based
on a five-point interest scale . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Table 8. One tailed t-test between response to interest in
subject matter by experimental and control groups . . . 47

Table 9. Pearsons Product Moment Coefficient correlation
between interest in subject matter and interest in video for
experimental and control groups . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Table 10. A frequency distribution of the total response for
each production technique from the Production Feedback
Questionnaire for group A (control) . . . . . . . . . . 49

Table 11. A frequency distribution of the total response for
each production technique from the Production Feedback
Questionnaire for group B (experimental) . . . . . . . 49

Table 12. A relative frequencies breakdown of total possible

affective response to the production techniques presented to
group A (control ) I I I O O O I O O O O I I O I I O O O 5 0

vi

Table 13. A relative frequencies breakdown of total possible
affective response to the production techniques presented to
group B (experimental) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Table 14. Chi-square statistic based on a 2 :c 2 cross
tabulation of group participation by total positive and
negative response, ranked by order of production segment 52

Table 15. Mean likability ratings for Dr. Yelon based on a
five-point scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Table 16. Two tailed t-test between response to the
likability scale by experimental and control groups for Dr.
Yelon I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 5 3

Table 17. Mean likability ratings for Stacey based on a five-
point scale I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 5 4

Table 18. Two tailed t-test between response to a five-point
likability scale for experimental and control groups for
Stacey I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 54

Table 19. Breakdown of positive response expressed toward the
example segment of the experimental treatment . . . . . 58

vii

INTRODUCTION

Television is perhaps our most far-reaching and even
invasive mediwm. A great deal of us today know no other
lifestyle than that which includes regular television viewing,
be it for entertainment, sports, news, and now, even shopping.
And with the advent of cable and home video, we are confronted
with an even wider variety of programming than ever before.

As mentioned, we go to television for news, sports, and
entertainment, but as Gnagey (1982) points out, " . . . there
is . . . one major and valuable use of television which, in
its over 30-year history, has not made comparable progress.
This is instructional television."

From the very beginning of the full motion medium of
film, it was forecasted that its greatest uses would. be
educational in nature. Edison failed to patent the motion
picture projector due to his feeling that its uses were mostly
for instructional purposes (Sanderson, 1968).

May and Lumsdaine (1958b) believed that the research,
" . . . indicates that films have a great unrealized potential
as teaching materials . . .," citing evidence such as the fact
that, " . . . from some films pupils learn faster and remember
a body of subject matter longer than when the same material is

presented only verbally; films have been used successfully to

2
facilitate thinking and problem solving; other films have
motivated the further study of a topic."

The forecasts for television as an instructional medium
have been just as enthusiastic. Tondow (1968) made a general
forecast for automated teaching systems:

. . . we are moving inexorably toward a world which

more and more can be described as a man-machine

system . . . As we look ahead, we see a much

different proportional relationship between man and
machine, with more and more productive and problem-
solving responsibilities assigned to machines.
Diamond (1968) predicted that " . . . within the next decade
the television set will become a standard fixture in most
classrooms."

And while the impact of television on instruction is not
small (Phillips, 1964) we are constantly brought back to
Gnagey's (1982) and many others' belief that the development
of instructional television and video is not comparable to the
amount of innovation that has taken place in other uses of
television. So what is needed to remedy this situation?

While instructional television " .. . has been subjected
to more research than any other instructional innovation
. . . " (Greenhill, 1964), this research certainly cannot
compete with the ongoing research in the exploitation of other
areas of television being conducted by Nielson and Arbitron,
et a1. If instructional television is to be developed to its
full potential, then more research needs to be conducted to

determine what will facilitate more interest on the learner's

part in the instructional materials of this medium, as well as

3
what will facilitate higher learning achievement from the
variety of techniques and formats this medium has to offer.
Coldevin (1980) states: "In the wake of the strenuous
research emphasis on the ‘teaching effectiveness' of
television and its comparative strength versus other media,

the present concern appears to be more sensitively attuned to

how to best use the medium in a given situation." Diamond
(1968) asserts that " . . . the question is no longer if
television will be used, but how, . . .," and certainly

television is being used for instructional purposes, but it is
in answering the questions of how we utilize this medium that
we will facilitate the greater use of it. It is in this
spirit that the research reported here was conducted.

Due to the wide variety of presentation formats available
to the instructional video producer, it is necessary for
research to be conducted that will determine which formats
stimulate the highest levels of learning achievement in
learners. Two presentation formats were compared and
contrasted within this study. One format known in the
instructional video production industry as "right way/wrong
way" is compared to a format to be known in this study as
"right way."

This report will first provide an overview of research
that has been previously conducted that is relevant to this
study. A plan for an experiment to measure the difference (or
lack thereof) of learning achievement and interest levels

between students who view a video done in the "right way"

4
presentation style and those students who view a video done in
the "right way/wrong way" presentation style is provided.
Results of the experiment are reported statistically, followed
by a discussion of those results. This report concludes with
a summary, conclusions, and recommendations for further
research. 0
o t b

Is there a significant difference in learning achievement
and interest levels between learners who view video
presentations using the "right way" format and learners who

view video presentations using the "right way/wrong way"

format?
WM!

It was the purpose of this study to determine the
relative levels of learning achievement and interest between
learners who view videos using either of the two video
formats, "right way" or "right way/wrong way."

Need of This Study

As Coldevin (1980) states: " . . . the bridge from
experimental research to formative series evaluation should
aid considerably in the formulation of practical theory for
ETV production." While this study alone is not enough to
change current production practices with regard to the use of
either of the two presentation formats being investigated, it
is the beginning of research that will someday answer the
question of which format will, and in what ways, be of

greatest aid to the instructional video producer. To answer

5
the question of which format stimulates higher learning
achievement in learners might then lead us to answer the
question of whether or not "right way/wrong way" stimulates
learners to be more critical of their own behavior in regard
to the skills being taught, as well as answering other
questions.

Through. many informal discussions with instructional
video producers, it appears that the use of the "right way/
wrong way" format is a growing trend in the instructional
video industry. Comparisons of "right way/wrong way" need to
be made to all types of presentation formats, but since it is
more expensive to shoot and edit "right way/wrong way"
presentations it is especially important to compare "right
way/wrong way" to "right way" as substantial monetary savings
or costs to the instructional video producer may be involved.

3 a 'o o t - The way in which content is
organized in order to present information via television,
film, or video.

Bign§_flgy - A presentation format that instructs the
viewer as to the correct method (positive instance) of
completing a task.

31W - A presentation format that first
.instructs the viewer as to the incorrect method or methods
(negative instances) of accomplishing a task (usually using as

an example a common mistake that other learners often make).

6
The viewer is then instructed in the correct method (positive
instance) of accomplishing the task.

Merrill and Tennyson (1977) write of instances, both
positive and negative, and refer to them as examples and
nonexamples: "The word instance is a general term used to
refer to both members and nonmembers of a concept class . . .
An example is a member of the concept under consideration
. . . A nonexmaple is any instance which is not a member of
the concept under consideration."

Shumway, et a1 (1983) further define the way in which
positive and negative instances are used in this text:
" . . . those objects that are examples of the concept are
called positive instances, and those examples that are not
examples of the concept are called negative instances."

The concept in the case of "right way/wrong way" is the
correct manner of accomplishing the skill being taught. The
pg§itivg insgnnce is the example (right way) given of the
correct way of accomplishing the task. The neggnive instance
is the nonexample (wrong way) given of the correct way to
accomplish the task.

ngzning Acnievemgnt - The amount of significant
information retained by the learner as determined by
comparative testing.

Maui—them!

This study was meant only to determine differences in

learning achievement and interest between learners viewing

"right way" video presentations and learners viewing “right

7
way/wrong way" video presentations. This study did not
determine whether or not "right way/wrong way" has any
benefits to the producer or learner other than a possible
increase in learning achievement or interest level (for
instance, whether or not "right way/wrong way" formats
stimulate critical thinking on the part of the learner in
regard to his or her own performance when actually confronted
by the task being taught). Likewise, this study did not
investigate any other benefits or liabilities inherent in the
"right way" presentation format that are not directly related
to learning achievement or overall interest.

The experiment developed and used in this study
controlled for unintended biases. Biases that did not have to
do directly with the differences between the two formats being
investigated were duplicated by using the same footage in both
video presentations used for comparison. Thus, any non-
related issues were duplicated in each tape, and as such, were
controlled.

The only known bias that was not controlled was the time
variable. The two presentation formats, "right way" and
"right way/wrong way," were presented as they naturally occur
in the instructional video production industry. As such, the
"right.way" presentation was shorter than the "right way/wrong
way" presentation. This study preferred a direct comparison
of alternate format choices natural to the video producer,
rather than an isolation of the effect of the common error

variable in its purest conceptual form.

        

7 development. This study investigates the instructional
it. of "right‘way/wrong'way' presentations in relation to

my' presentations .

 

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

gQflQgQL'fi. Exannigg ang Nonexnmpies, find Common EIEOES

Merrill and Tennyson (1977) define concepts as ordered
information regarding the properties of one or more things,
objects, events, or processes which allow for differentiation
or likening to other objects. The effective teaching of
concepts is considered a fundamental area of inquiry in
educational psychology research. Researchers suggest that
" . . . concept learning may be thought of as the stimulus
occurrence of two processes: 1) generalization of all
examples of the concept, and 2) discrimination of examples of
the concept from nonexamples" (Jassal and Tennyson, 1982).

In order to facilitate these two processes, Merrill and
Tennyson (1977) have developed a method for teaching concepts
in the traditional classroom setting. First, a definition of
the concept is provided. This is followed by an expository
presentation of matched example and nonexample pairs (examples
and nonexamples are matched when they are as similar as
possible save where the critical discriminating attribute is.
concerned). Matched pairs are dissimilar and progress from
those more easily grasped to those requiring more effort in

understanding. Finally, a practice presentation of previously

10
unencountered examples and nonexamples, in random order, is
provided.

A great deal of research has been devoted to finding out
whether or not the presentation of matched example/nonexample
pairs does facilitate concept attainment (Klausmeier, et al
1974, cited by Jassal and Tennyson, 1981-82; Feldman, 1971,
cited by Tennyson and Park, 1980; Tennyson, 1973; McKinney,
1985). All the research concurs that gng_nn;gning_§nnnnigL
ngngxnnnig ngizs do, in fngt, incrense goncen; atgginment.
One of the reasons for this increase in concept attainment is
hypothesized by Trowbridge and Mintzes (1985) in that " . . .
each pair focuses attention on one or more of the critical
attributes of the concepts." The researchers further
prescribed that descriptions of the critical attributes which
are absent from nonexamples be provided.

Markle and Tiemann (1969, cited by Tennyson, et al, 1972)
define the possibilities of a lack of adequate concept
attainment as overgeneralization, undergeneralization, and
misconception. Overgeneralization results when both examples
and some nonexamples are classified as members of the concept
class. Undergeneralization results when by the subject is
able to identify the more obvious examples of the concept
c1ass,-but cannot identify subtle varieties of the concept.
Misconception happens when the subject falsely assumes that
irrelevant attributes are actually relevant.

The final possibility posed by Tennyson, et al (1972),

was correct classification. The researchers hypothesized

ll

correctly that accurate concept classification would be the
result of matched example/nonexample pairs presented at all
probability levels, with as much divergence between pairs as
possible. This is important to the hypotheses found later in
this text, as only the first of these three criteria
prescribed by these researchers is fulfilled by the "right
way/wrong way" presentation style. While "right way/wrong
way" does present matched example/nonexample pairs, it does
not present them at all levels of probability. Since only one
matched pair is provided, the requirement for divergence
between pairs is also left unfulfilled.

Ali (1981, cited by Marcone and Riegeluth, 1988)
investigated the use of positive and negative instances for
teaching all types of content, and noted that little research
has been done in defining their use in procedure learning.
Within the scope of procedure learning, a nonexample is termed
a "common error." Marcone and Riegeluth (1988) state that:

. . . a matched nonexample for a concept is the

side-by-side presentation of an example of the

concept with a nonexample that is as similar to it

as possible . . . following the same rationale, a

matched nonexample for a procedure is the

demonstration of a common error in a performance of

the procedure, along with,a demonstration of the

corresponding correct performance.

A procedure is defined as an ordered method of
accomplishing a task (Riegeluth, et al, 1978). A common error

is further defined by Macomber (1980; cited by Garduno, et al,

1984) as the most often made mistake.

12

Muriel Lim-quek (1985) sees procedures as concepts
learned by rote, relatively isolated from other concepts, and
as such, easily forgotten. Principles (cause and effect
relationships), however, are seen by Lim-quek as the
underlying process on which a procedure is based. Principles
are more related to other concepts, and are perhaps for that
reason, more easily anchored in memory. (It should be noted
here that Lim-quek found no significant difference between
principle-procedure and procedure-principle sequencing of
information on procedure learning achievement).

Bentti, et al (1983) found that performance increases
significantly " . . . as a result of the presentation of
common errors in the instruction for procedure learning at the
application level." Bentti, et al (1983) and Gropper (1983)
concur that the teaching of nonexamples may be an effective
strategy for other than pure concept learning, and suggest its
applicability to procedure learning as well.

Garduno, et al (1984) did not support these findings. It
is in the research of Marcone and Riegeluth (1988) that we
begin to see a clarification of this discrepancy in their
findings that:

1. The presentation of common errors in
generality form significantly improves
learning to perform a procedure at the
application level.

2. The use of common errors in the example form
appears not to be beneficial to the learner,
even when matched with the correct performance

and when attention focusing devices are
employed on common errors.

13
Because of this finding, common errors in the example form
were related to conceptual rules in the generality form, as is
the common practice in "right way/wrong way" presentations.

While all the research does not coordinate to absolute
agreement on if and how common errors aid in teaching
procedures, Bentti, et a1 (1983), Garduno, et a1 (1984), and
Marcone and Riegeluth (1988), all agree on three basic rules:

1. Common errors should be presented at varying

difficulty levels to teach procedures effectively.

2. Common errors should be errors that are commonly

made by those who attempt to perform the task.

3. When using a common error it is most beneficial

when it is made apparent that it is, in fact, a
common error.

Also uncovered by this review of the literature were
findings of specific importance to the construction of the two
scripts prepared for this experiment.

It has been suggested that an orderly presentation of
instances increases the ease of concept attainment more than
a random presentation (Grant, 1951) although this report was
not supported by research evidence provided by Laughlin
(1965). Grant's findings do, however, coincide with the
normally orderly and formulaic approach taken by "right
way/wrong way" presentations.

A great deal of research supports the conclusion that
pointing out critical attributes or a conceptual rule would

raise the level of concept attainment more than when students

14
were left to classify attributes on their own (6055 and
Moylan, 1958; McCreary, 1963; Underwood and Richardson, 1956;
and Weiner, 1967, all cited by Clarke, 1971; Haygood and
Devine, 1967; Haygood and Stevenson, 1967; Klausmeier and
Meinke, 1968). This would suggest that commentary be provided
aside from the example/nonexample pairs presented in a "right
way/wrong way“ format.
5 T ev' 10 st ct' n

It has become overwhelmingly clear that television can,
and does, teach. The number of studies concerning the
question of whether or not television is an effective teaching
medium are too numerous to cite here. But as Chu and Schramm
(1967) put it:

. . . it has become clear that there is no longer

any reason to raise the question whether

instructional television can serve as an efficient

tool of learning. This is not to say 'that it

always does. But the evidence is now overwhelming

that it can and under favorable circumstances,

does. This evidence comes from many countries,

from studies of all age levels from preschool to

adults, and from a great variety of subject matter

and learning objectives.

Comparisons of television to other media for
instructional effectiveness have been made frequently. The
comparisons between television and conventional teaching are
far too numerous to go into in this text. But to get an idea

of some of the comparisons between media a select few are

cited.

15

Lasser (1955) found that there was no significant
difference in overall learning achievement between a film and
filmstrip presentation of identical material, save in one sub-
operation where the film group did better. This was
presumably because the film was more continuous.

Williams, et a1 (1957), compared the live lecture,
televised lecture, radio lecture, and written version of an
instructional program. Television was rated highest in
achieving learning goals, followed by radio, and then reading
and live lecture tied two ways for last place.

Silent films with narration provided by the classroom
teacher were found to be more effective at teaching than sound
films (Craig, 1956). Although not a comparison between
different media, it is from studies such as these that the
question of how best to utilize the television medium arises.
And subsequent to that question comes the question of what is
it about television that makes it a good teaching medium?

Mark May (1968) found that visual stimuli is superior to
verbal stimuli for inspiring simple forms of learning
achievement and retention of information. One reason
hypothesized for this is that there is more room for
misinterpretation of verbal information due to the fact that
words often have more than one meaning, whereas simple
pictures are whatever they appear to be, and could serve as a
stronger mnemonic device.

It would seem that the very presence of varied visual

stimuli makes learning retention greater, even when unrelated

16

to the content being presented (Edwardson, et al, 1981). When
comparisons were made between a format that had only talking
heads and presentation that had talking heads interspersed
with related and unrelated visuals, it was found that learning
achievement was higher when there were visuals presented, as
in the second format. This suggests the possibility that when
viewers watch varied material that material acts as a type of
mnemonic device.

Joan Tierney (1980) also cites television's capability to
teach visually as a major benefit of the medium. She
concludes that television's attention-gaining devices and
ability to actually display material visually demonstrates its
teaching capacity.

In the same vein, Costello and Gordon (1961) point out
that:

. . . as a vehicle for concretizing

abstractions . . . television allows an instructor

to bring together many devices for illustration and

explanation. Where concretized abstractions must

be shown working, as in mathematics, the potentials

of video are enormous.

Gnagey (1982) makes the point even clearer by stating that
" . . . visualization can make the theoretical concrete by
illustrating applications or demonstrating concepts."

Beyond that of the visual superiority of television,
film, and video to other media, Mary Lynn Crow (1979) relates
that some of the advantages of television instruction is the
preparation inherent in the production process. The research

and pre-production necessary to produce most instructional

17
television programming insures a quality that cannot easily be
matched in a conventional classroom setting. R. A. Sanderson
(1968) asserts that the capability of film (and hence
television and video) to provide a common experience for
students is one of the medium's primary benefits for teaching
purposes.
'0 a 5

There is not a tremendous amount of research in the area
of presentation formats (Coldevin, 1980). In the past forty
years, there have been in the neighborhood of ten or fifteen
significant papers written on the subject of how content is
organized for film, television, and video instruction
(Coldevin, 1980).

After comparing a number of formats categorized for their
technical attributes, Salomon and Cohen (1977) found that
" . . . different formats typical of the television medium
differentially affect the mental skills that are called into
play." This leads to the question of just what the
differences are between formats as well as what the
differences are in their effect on learners.

Schwarzwalder (1960) concluded that students learned more
from watching programming that showed visual organization and
continuity as well as visual reinforcement. Comparisons of
television formats have also helped researchers to determine
that superior technical production is important to all types

of viewers (Green and Matsui, 1981).

18

James Paluzzi (1980) compares and contrasts five
presentation formats: 1) faceless narrator, 2) talking head,
3) interview, 4) dramatic encounter, and 5) participant
observer. It is Paluzzi's finding that " . . . we have to
date, little conclusive evidence that suggests the superiority
of a given production format." In this assertion Paluzzi is
absolutely correct, for in most of the experimental research
where there are not conflicting findings there are usually no
significant differences in learning achievement between the
control and the experimental groups.

In comparing the lecture, interview, and discussion
methods of jpresenting factual information, Brandon (1956)
found a significant difference in interest between groups, but
no significant difference between groups when comparing for
learning achievement:

1. Programs utilizing the interview and
discussion methods of presentation are
significantly more interesting than the
programs utilizing the lecture method of
presentation.

2. The three methods of presentation do not
differ significantly in their ability to
communicate information.

This is just one of many studies that failed to make any
correlation between interest level and learning achievement.

The validity of these three formats in regard to their
effectiveness as instructional presentations was further
tested by Ketcham and Heath (1963) who found no significant

difference in learning achievement between those who viewed

films that had a direct visual representation of content and

19
those that did not (where a speaker presenting the information
was the only visual material).

The lecture style has been compared to the problem-
solving approach (Detmeier, et al, 1963, cited by Chu and
Schramm, 1967; Kaplan, 1963) with somewhat conflicting
results. Detmeier, et al, found no significant difference in
the learning achievement of the lecture viewers and that of
the problem-solving audience. Kaplan, on the other hand,
tested subjects with a test designed to appraise students'
problem-solving ability and found significantly higher
learning achievement on the part of the students who viewed
the material presented with the problem-solving approach.

Expository and dramatic presentation styles were tested
for relative learning achievement and interest levels.
Television was actually found to be more instructive than
face-to-face instruction when unaided by any dramatic
reinforcement (Rock, at al, 1951a, cited by Chu and Schramm,
1967).

Blain (1956, cited by Chu and Schramm, 1967) found no
significant variance in learning achievement between fifth
grade groups that viewed expository and dramatic presenta-
tions. There was, however, significant variance among eighth
graders who viewed the same presentations with learning
achievement being higher in those students exposed to the
expository version.

Lumsdaine and Gladstone (1958) found fifth graders'

interest level in dramatic presentations higher, whereas ninth

20'
graders were more interested in the expository version. The
interesting thing about,these results is that when learning
achievement was concerned, the tendencies were exactly
opposite: fifth graders learned more from the expository
version, whereas ninth graders' learning achievement was
raised as a result of the dramatic version.

Kazem (1961) found no significant variance in learning
achievement between groups viewing dramatic and expository
versions of a film covering the same content.

Costello and Gordon (1961) assert that " . . . certain
subjects seem to lend themselves to dramatization better than
others, most notably the social sciences, literature,
psychology, [and] sociology." Meaney (1962, cited by Crow,
1979) states that " . . . a psychologist can present to his
students in a course on television many experiences which he
cannot give them otherwise. He can plan skits dramatizing the
dynamics of behavior, he can plan a mock counseling
interview."

Paluzzi (1980) also believed that the dramatic encounter
has its place in instructional television, describing it as
" . . . an intezyiew ggndncnag witngnt any nnoduction
gnnagignanaaa . . . " allowing the viewer to " . . . inangiiy
uith.fhe_smarac§sr§ to an even greater degree, since the
removal of the artificial traditional interview situation
_allows the viewer to vicanignsly anneniance that encounter."
An interesting comparison was made between videos that

had narrators that acted as a part of instructional vignettes

21
and ‘those that had. narrators who acted apart from ‘these
vignettes (Brown, et al, 1975). Adult learners did better on
learning achievement tests when the EI§§§D£§I took part in the
ingnynggignal vignettes.
WW

Over the past forty years a tremendous amount of research
has been conducted that compares specific production
techniques for their effect on learning achievement and
interest levels. Presented here is a review of the research
that has specific relevance to this study and the techniques
under consideration for the experiment described in the method
chapter of this text.

It has been found that a variety of sngts rather than a
static composition is favored slightly by students, and that
learning achievement was increased in part of one test due to
that variety (Cobin and McIntyre, 1961).

Ellery (1959) compared. a wide variety of production
variables including a "limbo set" that showed a speaker in no
particular place, and an "actual set" where the speaker was
placed in front of a studio curtain. There was no significant
difference in learning achievement, but there was more
interest expressed in the presentation made with the "limbo
set." This suggests that sets need not necessarily be of
elaborate design to interest an audience. This finding is in
direct contrast to the film verite approach of most industrial

videos, which are usually field productions.

22

agyanga_gxganiaa;§, it has been found, do facilitate
learning achievement, but while doing so, sometimes seem to
confuse students (Nugent, et al, 1980), suggesting that
advance organizers might set up expectations on the part of
the student that may or may not be realistic.

Inga;§ign__a£__gna§§ign§, before and after learning
segments, was examined by Kantor (1960). No significant gain
in learning achievement was recorded.

Miller and Levine (1952 and replicated Miller, Levine,
and Sternberg 1954, cited by Chu and Schramm, 1967) compared
three versions of a training film, one without suntities, one
with major subtitles, and one with complete subtitles. No
significant differences in learning achievement were found.
Northrup (1952, cited by Chu and Schramm, 1967), however,
found different results. Where the film was not very well
organized, learning achievement was higher in the subtitled
version. When the material presented was well organized,
learning achievement was higher in the non-subtitled version.

Where presenter types were concerned, it was found that
§h1n_§naaka:§ were preferred for the most part over muscular
or fat speakers (McCain and Divers, 1973). Audience members
rated the commentators on source credibility and interpersonal
attraction. No reports of variance in interest or learning
achievement were made.

No significant differences were found in learning
achievement or interest as a result of increased or decreased

amounts of ‘aya_ggn§ag§' between the presenter and the camera

23
(Connolly, 1962, cited by Chu and Schramm, 1967; Westley and
Mobius, 1960, cited by Chu and Schramm, 1967).
ses

Within any comparison of films or videos, unintended
biases may be present. Duck and Baggaley (1974) found
unintended biases in an experiment which compared two video
presentations of the same lecture. One version showed the
audience in a bgrsd_and_inattentixe state, the other version
showed the audience in an interested and attentive state. Not
surprisingly, the viewers of the two videos rated the speaker
as boring in the version where the audience was shown bored,
and interesting where the audience was shown interested.

Duck and Baggaley (1975a) also found that fiin style
anggning and editing of interviews made the respondent seem
more interesting and profound than in two camera live edited
shoots. This is interesting because it is the footage of the
interviewer rather than the respondent that is manipulated in
the film style shooting and editing processes.

In another experiment, Baggaley and Duck (1974) concluded
that " . . . when presented against the [cnnomakeyag] picture
background the speaker was construed as significantly more
honest, more profound, more reliable, and more fair than when
seen against a plain background." This finding was further
validated by Coldevin (1978).

Speakers were also perceived as being more profound when
shown in gana;a_angia§ that did not reveal them referring to

their notes (Duck and Baggaley, 1975b). The interesting point

24
here is that respondents to the video that showed the speaker
referring to his or her notes did not consciously know that
they were reacting negatively to the inclusion of the notes in
the shot.

All in all, the evidence by Baggaley, Duck, and Coldevin
demonstrates that within any video there is the potential for
the audience to react in unexpected ways to specific
production techniques.

0 'n nst c 'on v's'

Many theories have been developed in regard to the use of
humor for instructional purposes. Opposite camps cite the
theories that humor is an effective attention-gaining device
or that humor serves as a distraction to the instructional
message.

The results of research in this area have proven to be
confusing and at odds with each other. Lumsdaine and
Gladstone (1958) report that when two versions of a filmstrip
were compared, the non-humorous version yielded the highest
learning achievement.

McIntyre (1954, cited by Chu and Schramm, 1967) found no
significant difference in learning achievement where a
humorous and non-humorous version of a program were shown.

zillman, et a1 (1980) found that humorous inserts
unrelated to the instructional content, especially those that
were fast paced, do facilitate learning achievement on the
part of younger viewers. zillman and Bryant (1980) in their

review of literature on this subject came to the conclusion

25
that where adults were concerned, niig_nnnnny_§anan§igaiiy
e ’ s ' c n , could facilitate
learning achievement on the part of adult viewers.
SHEEQI!

The research concerning the use of common errors and
matched example/nonexample pairs, presentation formats,
various techniques, and unintended biases is contradicted when
considering the question of what benefits or liabilities
”right way/wrong way" presentations have to offer the
instructional video producer. Therefore, the two hypotheses
developed in this thesis were based on the industry-wide
presumption that "right way/wrong way" does have benefits to
offer.

We:

Based on the patterns of research results uncovered in
this review of the literature, the following hypotheses were
developed:

m:

Learning and interest will be inspired by the "right way"
video presentation, as well as the "right way/wrong way" video
presentation.

W:

1) Learning achievement will be greater on the part of

students who view "right way/wrong way" video presentation

than for those who view the "right way" presentation.

26
2) Interest levels will be greater in the "right
way/wrong way" video presentation on the part of student

viewers than in the "right way" presentation.

METHODOLOGY

Program Development -

Using research which is cited and condensed on the
following pages, two versions of an instructional video
program were produced. The control group ("right way")
version was 10 minutes 17 seconds long; the experimental group
("right way/wrong way") version was 12 minutes 55 seconds.
The content of the programs was the four steps necessary to
demonstrating a task effectively. The program was shown to 98
undergraduate and graduate students from the Advertising,
Communication, and Telecommunication Departments of the
College of Communications Arts and Sciences at Michigan State
University.

The difference between the two programs was isolated to
the examples and discussion segments that had to do with the
non-examples, or common errors, made by demonstrators.
Sequences in the "right way/wrong way" video program
progressed in the following manner:

Discussion of wrong way - example of wrong way -
discussion of right way - example of right way - discussion of
wrong way, etc.

Whereas sequences in the "right way" video program

progressed in the following manner:

27

28

Discussion of right way - example of right way -
discussion of right way, etc.

The following research was referred to and drawn upon in
developing both or either the "right way" and "right way/wrong
way" video programs:

1. Merrill and Tennyson's (1977) model of providing a
definition followed by a closely matched example/non-example
pairs (note: only one level of difficulty was provided for
the steps being demonstrated in the "right way/wrong way"
video, in keeping with most "right way/wrong way" treatments).
This research was, of course, central to the hypotheses being
tested. This method of teaching is further substantiated by
Klausmeier, et al (1974, cited by Jassal and Tennyson, 1981-
82); Feldman (1971, cited by Tennyson and Park, 1980);
Tennyson (1973); McKinney (1985).

2. Bentti, et al (1983) and Gropper's (1983) suggestion
that the teaching of non-examples can be used for procedure
learning.

3. Bentti, et al (1983); Garduno, et al (1984); and
Marcone and Riegeluth's (1988) findings that common errors
when shown should be errors that are commonly made by those
performing the task.

4. Bentti, et a1 (1983); Garduno, et al (1984); and
Marcone and Riegeluth's (1988) finding that when using a
common error for an example it is most beneficial when it is

made apparent that it is, in fact, a common error.

29

5. Grant's (1951) finding that an ordered presentation
of instances increases the ease of concept attainment.

6. Research that suggests the need for commentary to be
that points out critical attributes of an instance (G055 and
Moylan, 1958; McCreary, 1963; Underwood and Richardson, 1956;
and. Weiner, 1967, all cited. by Clark, 1971; Haygood and
Devine, 1967; Haygood and Stevenson, 1967; Klausmeier and
Meinke, 1968).

7. Brandon's (1956) finding that the interview and
discussion methods of presentation yield higher interest
levels.

8. Costello and Gordon's (1961) assertion that
dramatization lends itself to subjects within the social
sciences, such as educational psychology.

9. Paluzzi's assertion that dramatization is
essentially "an interview conducted without any production
consciousness, which allows the viewer to identify even more
with the characters depicted."

10. Brown, Brown, and Danielson's (1975) finding that
adult learners did better when presenter's took part in the
example vignettes.

11. Nugent's (1980) finding that advance organizers can
facilitate learning achievement.

. 12. McCain and Divers' (1973) finding that thin

presenters were preferred to fat or muscular speakers.

30

13. Duck and Baggaley's (1974) finding that presenters
are held in higher esteem by viewers when their video audience
shows interest and are held in lower esteem by viewers when
their video audience appears bored.

14. Ellery's (1959) discovery that films don't
necessarily need a complex set to gain students' interest, but
can be as easily involved in scenes with a "limbo set."
Treatment -

The following is an analysis of program segments used in
the two videos, as well as production variables utilized
during those segments. Analysis is made in reference to the
instructional and interest objectives of each segment or
variable.

W
Action and dialogue:

Hands perform rope trick while Dr. Yelon asks the
audience to watch, and then if the audience is ready to
perform the trick themselves. He then asks what it would take
for him to show the audience how to perform a trick like the
one he just performed. He then tells the audience that ana;
is the topic of the program they are watching.

Instructional Objectives:

To state the problem (i.e., the trouble with just showing
somebody how to do something without using the four steps to
demonstration), and to indicate that the answer is forth-

coming.

31
Interest Objectives:

To create a sense of curiosity and interest.

Eyggnggign yaziania: Music gazing ingzodugtion
Instructional Objective:

To raise production value and therefore credibility as
per Schramm and Chu's (1967) finding that students' perception
of the quality and interest of an instructional video program
is related to the attitude formation toward that program.
Interest Objectives:

To raise interest in the video by giving it an appearance
closer to that of an entertainment program.

e : Th 'scuss'o

Stacey and Dr. Yelon (see Appendix A and B) discuss the
topic of demonstration and point out particular character—
istics of each example.

Instructional Objective:

To show the need for information about demonstration, as
well as to "set up" the examples with information that clues
the viewers as to what to look for, as well as commentary
about what they have just seen. There is also the objective
of displacing any possible learner apprehension on the part of
viewers to the character, Stacey, through the identification
process described in the interest objectives.

Interest Objectives:
To allow the viewer to identify with Stacey (rather than

be lectured to) and, as such, to be put in a receptive mood.

32

WW
Action and Dialogue:

Dr. Yelon addresses a classroom with a demonstration of
a knot that he is teaching the class to tie. In the "right
way” version, all examples are examples of the correct way to
demonstrate according to the step being presented. In the
"right way/wrong way" version, the examples are both of the
correct and incorrect ways of accomplishing the task.
Instructional Objectives:

In the "right way" version, the examples are provided to
show how to accomplish the task in the simplest (perhaps least
confusing) means possible. In the "right way/wrong way"
version, the wrong way of accomplishing the task is shown to
demonstrate not only the common error, but the results of the
common error as a reinforcement of learning. Specific data
being presented are the four steps necessary to effective
demonstration: 1) tell students they will perform, 2) tell
students what clues to pay attention to, 3) say and then do,
and 4) have students commit the steps to memory.

Interest Objectives:
The instructor acted as a part of the vignettes as per
Brown, et al's (1975) finding.
' 0 Pa ' ' a
Action:
Students in the classroom are shown reacting to Dr.

Yelon's incorrect (in the "right way/wrong way" version) and

33
correct (in both versions) applications of the demonstration
techniques.
Instructional Objectives:

The use of this variable was to facilitate an under-
standing of the results of the correct or incorrect
application of the demonstration techniques being presented
(when students appeared bored due to the absence of the first
step, for instance).

Interest Objectives:

Student participation was a dramatic presentation and was
meant to involve the viewer through his or her identification
with Dr. Yelon.

Exagnggign Vaniabie; The Nagzations
Dialogue:

At the end of some of the example segments, narration by
Dr. Yelon was provided.

Instructional Objective:

To encapsulate and condense the instructional objectives
with the example segment for the viewer.
Interest Objective:

This variable was meant to remain as transparent as
possible and was meant to create an easy transition between
the example and, discussion segments by foreshadowing Dr.
Yelon's presence in the discussion with his voice in the

example.

34
'0 V r' l : G a h'c ur' T ans't'ons
Visuals:

Graphics were provided between the discussion and example
segments of the program (i.e., "say and then do" in the "right
way" version or "say and then do, right way" in the "right
way/wrong way" version).

Instructional Objective:

The graphics were provided to let the audience know what
instance they would be viewing so as to reflect the present
step being demonstrated in the program. Advance organizers
were provided in order to facilitate an orderly presentation
in the program as well as to prepare viewers for forthcoming
information.

Interest Objectives:

This variable was intended (along with the music during
these segments) to raise the production value of the program
and put the viewer in a receptive mood.

Ezggngtion Variable: nusig Duging Grannigs

Music was provided during the graphics presented previous
to the examples. In the "right way" version, the music during
the graphics was of a positive tonality because each of the
examples was a positive instance. In the "right way/wrong
way" version, the tonality was either positive or negative
depending on whether the instance was positive or negative.
Instructional Objectives: .
The instructional objectives for the music during the

graphics were the same as for the instructional objectives for

35
the graphics: to alert viewers to the type of instance
(positive or negative) by the tonality of the music.
Interest Objectives:

The interest objectives for the music during the graphics
were the same as for the interest objectives of the graphics:
to raise the production value of the program and to put the
viewer into a receptive mood.

W

A post-test only design using the same test (see Appendix
C) for the experimental (right way/wrong way") and control
("right way") groups was used to evaluate differences in
learning achievement, interest, subjective response evaluation
of specific program segments and production variables and
demographics. Since the number of participants in both groups
combined approached 100, it was assumed that the distribution
of individual differences would be normal and the subjects
would be a representative sample of motivated learners.
Subjects

Respondents were undergraduate and graduate students
drawn from the Advertising, Communication, and Telecommuni-
cation Departments in the College of Communication Arts and
Sciences at Michigan State University. The rationale for
using students from these programs was both for convenience
and for the fact that they can be considered motivated
learners. The primary target audience for the program was
instructors and teachers, but the program design was made to

create a "stand alone" instructional video, requiring no

 

36
special knowledge or jargon a college-level student would be
unaccustomed to. Student participation was voluntary although
some classes did provide extra credit for participating.

The age of the students participating ranged from 19 to
30, with the average being 22.3 years of age. The grade
levels ranged from sophomore to first-year graduate level, the
average being just less than senior level.

Subjects were divided into the experimental and control
groups via random assignment. Both groups were told that they
were to watch a video, after which they would respond to a
questionnaire which consisted of a test on content, a survey
on interest levels, a production feedback questionnaire, and
a demographic questionnaire. Students were not allowed to
take notes, and no teacher-directed follow-up was used after
either presentation.
111W

Each questionnaire consisted of three tests. The first
test was developed to measure learning achievement. An
eleven-question, nineteen-point questionnaire was developed
with multiple choice, essay, and recall responses called for.

The learning achievement test was followed by Production
Feedback Questionnaire, developed by Barbatsis and Wong
(1977), so as to determine the effectiveness of certain
production variables.

The Production Feedback Questionnaire was followed by
brief interest questionnaire designed to gauge viewers'

overall interest in the subject as well as the video. The

37
interest section was interspersed with open-ended and closed-
ended questions regarding certain production variables
unsuited to being gauged by the Production Feedback
Questionnaire. Following the interest survey was the
Demographic Survey, designed to determine the type of person
being tested.

The test was designed to be as brief as possible, as one
of the main concerns of students deciding on whether or not to
participate was the length of time necessary to complete the
exercise. The complete test can be found in Appendix C.
Analxsis

The learning test was compiled in the form of five test
scores in order to segment the scores according to what level
of learning the test was operating (i.e., recall, recognition,
or application). A compilation of all five scores was also
made. Each segment average score, as well as the compiled
average score, of all segments was compared by means of a t-
test performed between groups.

The interest scale questions, as well as the production
scale questions (regarding the likability of Dr. Yelon and
Stacey), were compiled into scores which were then summed and
averaged. A t—test was then performed on each question to
determine if there was a significant difference between
groups.

The Production Feedback Questionnaire scores were
evaluated through the use of cross-tabulation to determine if

a significant difference existed between the frequencies

38
observed and the frequencies expected in positive and negative
responses between groups.
SHEEQI!

Based on the research summarized in the Review of the
Literature, two video treatments were developed to compare the
differences between "right way" (control) and "right way/wrong
way" (experimental) presentation formats.

A test was developed to determine if there was a
difference between the two treatments in the areas of learning
achievement, interest, affective response to individual
production segments and variables.

The videos were viewed by 98 College of Communication
Arts and Sciences students at Michigan State University, who

were then administered the test.

RESULTS

One of the two hypotheses showed significant variance
between the control and experimental groups. The first
hypothesis predicted that higher learning achievement would be
a result of the experimental, or "right way/wrong way"

presentation format.

Aagnnngign - Learning will occur with programs using either
the "right way" (control) or "right way/wrong way"
(experimental) presentation formats. Analysis of the multiple
choice, essay, and recall portions of the test found that both
treatments were adequate in communicating the instructional

information embodied in the programs.

Table 1. Mean test scores based on a 19-point learning

achievement test.

EKEEBIMEHTAL QQNIBQL

N = 48 N = 50

Mean = 15.01 Mean = 13.12
= 79% = 69%

Minimum = 7 Minimum = 7

Maximum = 19 Maximum = 18

39

40
Table 2. Breakdown of mean test scores based on a 19-point
learning achievement test by section.
- Section A -

(Recall Section Reflecting Primary Learning Objectives)

EXEEBIMEHIAL QQNIBQL

N 8 48 N 8 50

Mean 8 3.729 Mean 8 3.6
I 93.225% = 90%

Minimum = 2 Minimum = 2

Maximum - 4 Maximum = 4

Total possible score = 4

- Section B -

(Recall Section Reflecting Primary Learning Objectives)

EXREBIMEHIAL QQNIBQL
N248 N-50
Mean 8 2.938 Mean = 2.26

8 73.45% = 56.5%
Minimum 8 0 Minimum 8 0
Maximum - 4 Maximum = 4

Total possible score a 4

41
Table 2 (continued)
- Section C -

(Recognition Section Reflecting Secondary Learning Objectives)

EXREBIMEHIAL QQHIBQL
N a 48 N ' 50
Mean 2 3.188 Mean = 2.7

8 79.7% I 67.5%
Minimum - 2 Minimum a 1
Maximum 2 4 Maximum = 4

Total possible score a 4

- Section D -

(Recognition Section Reflecting Secondary Learning Objectives)

EXEEBIMENIAL QQNIBQL
N a 48 N = 50
Mean - 2.479 Mean = 2.2

8 82.63% = 73.33%
Minimum 8 1 Minimum 8 1
Maximum - 3 Maximum = 3

Total possible score a 3

42

Table 2 (continued)
- Section E -

(Application Section Reflecting Secondary Learning Objectives)

EXREBIMENIAL QQNTBQL

N =- 48 N = 50

Mean 8 2.677 Mean = 2.36
= 66.925% =- 59%

Minimum - 0 Minimum = 0

Maximum = 4 Maximum = 4

Total possible score a 4

The mean test score for overall learning achievement
(including' recall, recognition, and. application 'test
instruments) for the experimental group was 15.01 or 79%
correct. This seems high considering not all the test
sections concerned the primary learning objectives (recall).
The mean test score for overall learning achievement was 13.12
or 69% on the part of the control group.

Even though 'there was a 10% difference in overall
learning achievement, both groups demonstrated learning of the
subject matter; therefore, both treatments of the production
can be considered effective learning tools. Because of this,
the first condition of the assumption is accepted.

The first hypothesis predicted a relationship between
greater learning and the viewing of a "right way/wrong way"

format.

43
W: Learning will be greater on the part of
students who view the "right way/wrong way" presentation.

A t-test (difference of means) was used to determine if
there was any significant variance between learning achieve-
ment on the part of the control and experimental groups. A
one-tailed test was used due to industry producers' assump-
tions that learning achievement would be higher in the "right

way/wrong way" treatments.

Table 3. One tailed t-test between groups receiving "right
way/wrong way" (experimental) and "right way" (control)

production formats (overall learning achievement).

BQQLED_¥ABIAN§E_E§IIMAIE §EEABAIEJEEQJQEZLE§IIMAIE

t = -3.09 t = -3.09

Probability a .0015 (one Probability = .0015 (one
tailed) tailed)

Df 8 96 Of 3 95.95

44 .
Table 4. Breakdown of t-tests comparing mean scores of
experimental and control. groups on a 19-point learning
achievement test.

- Section A -

(Recall Section Reflecting Primary Learning Objectives)

RQQLED_!ABIANQE_E§IIEAIE §EEABAIEJEUQUHEHIEfiIIMATE
t 8 -l.05 t 8 -1.06
Probability 8 .148 (one Probability = .147 (one
tailed) tailed)
Df 8 96 Df 8 92.98
N 8 98

- Section B -

(Recall Section Reflecting Primary Learning Objectives)

EQQLED_¥ABIAE§E_E§IIMAIE §EEABAIEJHHQHQEHLEEIIMAIE
t 8 -3.15 t 8 -3.14
Probability 8 .001 (one Probability 8 .001 (one
tailed) tailed)
Df 8 96 Df 8 91.59
N 8 98

- Section C -

(Recognition Section Reflecting Secondary Learning Objectives)

RQQLED_¥BBIANQE_E§IIHAIE EEEABAIEJHUQUflflfllfifiilflblfi

t 8 -3.06 t 8 -3.07

Probability = .0015 (one Probability = .0015 (one
tailed) tailed)

Of 8 96 Of 8 91.24

N 8 98

45

Table 4 (continued)

- Section D -

(Recognition Section Reflecting Secondary
Learning Achievement)

EQQLED_¥BBIAH§E_E§IIMAIE §EEABAIEJEQQJQEZLEEIIMAIE
t 8 -1.95 t 8 -1.96
Probability 8 .027 (one Probability = .0265 (one
tailed) tailed)
Of 8 96 Of 8 95.95
N 8 98

- Section E -

(Application Section Reflecting Secondary Learning Objectives).

RQQLED_¥ABIANQE_E§IIMAIE §EEABAIEJHHQUHEHLEEIIMAIE
t 8 -1.19 t 8 -l.19
Probability - .1185 (one Probability = .1175 (one
tailed) tailed)
Df 8 96 Of 8 94.34
N 8 98

There were only 15 chances in 10,000 that the difference
between groups is attributable to chance. Because of this,
the first hypothesis predicting greater learning achievement
on the part of viewers who saw the "right way/wrong way"
presentation was accepted.

The second condition of the assumption was that interest
would be inspired by both "right way" and "right way/wrong

way" presentation formats.

46
Interest in the video was gauged by a five-point rating
scale where a rating of one indicated low interest and a

rating of five indicated high interest.

Table 5. Mean interest in video rating scores based on a

five-point interest scale.

EXBEBIMENIAL QQNTBQL
N 8 48 N = 50
Mean 8 3.06 Mean 8 3.04
8 51.5% 8 51%
Minimum 8 1 Minimum 8 1
Maximum 8 5 Maximum 8 5
Hynggna§i§_z - Interest will be higher on the part of students

who view the "right way/wrong way" presentation style.
A t-test was performed to determine if there was
significant variance between experimental and control groups

(see Table 6).

Table 6. One tailed t-test between response to the interest

in video scale by experimental and control groups.

RQQLED.¥ABIANQE_E§IIMAIB §EEABAIEAHEUIQEHLE§IIMAIE

t 8 .19 t 8 .19

Probability 8 .424 (one Probability 8 .424 (one
.tailed) tailed)

Of 8 96 Of 8 95.96

47

There were over 42 chances in 100 that the difference
between means was attributable to chance. Because of this,
the second hypothesis predicting greater interest on the part
of those who viewed the "right way/wrong way" presentation was
rejected.

Because participants were not a part of the production
primary target audience, two measures were used to gauge
interest, the interest in video measure previously described,
and an interest in subject matter measure (see Tables 7 and

8).

Table 7. Mean interest in subject matter rating scores based

on a five-point interest scale.

EXEEBIMENIAL QQNIBQL

N 8 48 N 8 50

Mean 8 2.979 Mean 8 3.04
8 49.475% 8 51%

Minimum 8 1 Minimum 8 1

Maximum 8 5 Maximum 8 5

Table 8. One tailed t-test between response to interest in

subject matter scale by experimental and control groups.

EQQLED_¥LBIANQE_E§IIHAIE fiERABAIEJHNEUMEBLEEIIMAIE

t 8 .28 t 8 .28

Probability 8 .39 (one Probability 8 .39 (one
tailed) tailed)

Df 8 96 Df 8 95.97

N898

48
There were 39 chances in 100 that the differences between
the two groups' responses to interest in the subject matter
was caused by chance. Because of this, the variance between
groups was not considered significant.
hHowever, a Pearsons product moment coefficient was
computed between interest in the subject matter and interest

in the video for both groups (see Table 9).

Table 9. Pearsons product moment coefficient correlation
between interest in subject matter and interest in video for

experimental and control groups.

EXEEBIMENIAL QQNIBQL
N 8 48 N 8 50
Pearsons r 8 .6863 Pearsons r 8 .6593

Pearsons r for both the experimental and control groups
was over .6; therefore, it was determined that there was a
strong correlation between interest in the subject matter and
interest in the video presentation.

This correlation explains the somewhat low interest in
video scores garnered by both treatments, especially since the
results from the interest in video question seemed
inconsistent with the results from the Production Feedback

Questionnaire (See Tables 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14).

49
Table 10. A frequency distribution of the total response for
each production technique from the Production Feedback

Questionnaire for Group A (control).

TOTAL ACTUAL ACTUAL
AFFECTIVE RESPONSE POSSIBLE POSITIVE NEGATIVE
______BAIIN§______ BE§RQN§E BE§EQN§E BE§£QN§E
1) Curious/indifferent 450 66 (14.67%) 124 (27.56%)
2) Involved/preached to 450 57 (12.67%) 22 (4.89%)
3) Content/confused 450 105 (23.33%) L4(3.11%)
4) Pleased/displeased 450 52 (11.56%) 20(4.44%)
5) Interested/
disinterested 450 100 (22.22%) 32(7.11%)

Table 11. A frequency distribution of the total response for
each production technique from the Production Feedback

Questionnaire for Group B (experimental).

TOTAL ACTUAL ACTUAL
AFFECTIVE RESPONSE POSSIBLE POSITIVE NEGATIVE
______BAIIN§______ BE§£QN§E BEERQNEE BEEEQNEE
1) Curious/indifferent 432 59 (13. 65%) 118 (27.31%)
2) Involved/preached to 432 45 (10.42%) I7(3.94%)
3) Content/confused 432 89 (20.6%) 4 (.93%)
4) Pleased/displeased 432 71 (16.44%) 39(9.03%)

5) Interested/
disinterested 432 81 (18.75%) 42(9.72%)

50
Table 12. A relative frequencies breakdown of total possible
affective response to the production techniques presented to

Group A (control).

TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL

POSSIBLE POSITIVE NEGATIVE

BE§29N§E BE§£QN§§ B§§£QN§£
1) Opening 250 68 (27.2%) 14 (5.5%)
2) Discussion 250 44 (17.6%) 32 (12.8%)
3) Examples 250 62 (24.8%) 18 (7.2%)
4) Narrations 250 41 (16.4%) 20 (8%)
5) Transitions I 250 36 (14.4%) 22 (8.8%)
6) Transitions II 250 27 (10.8%) 25 (10%)
7) Music-introduction 250 30 (12%) 26 (10.4%)
8) Music-before examples 250 29 (11.6%) 23 (9.2%)

9) Graphics 250 45 (18%) 18 (7.2%)

51
Table 13. A relative frequencies breakdown of total possible
affective response to the production techniques presented to

Group B (experimental).

TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL
POSSIBLE POSITIVE NEGATIVE
RESPONSE BESRQNSE BESEQNSE
1) Opening 240 57 (23.75%) 12 (5%)
2) Discussion 240 28 (11.67%) 48 (20%)
3) Examples 240 62 (25.8%) 13 (5.42%)
4) Narrations 240 51 (21.25%) 15 (6.25%)
5) Transitions I 240 27 (11.25%) 24 (10%)
6) Transitions II 240 28 (11.67%) 28 (11.67%)
7) Music-introduction 240 22 (9.17%) 25 (10.42%)
8) Music-before examples 240 28 (7.5%) 27 (11.25%)

9) Graphics 240 36 (15%) 17 (7.08%)

52
Table 14. Chi-square statistic based on a 2 x 2 cross
tabulation of group participation by total positive and

negative response, ranked by order of production segment.

EBQDQQIIQN_SE§NENI QflleQHABE
1) Opening .0027
2) Discussion 6.6

3) Examples .6465
4) Narrations 1.61
5) Transitions I .93
6) Transitions II .05
7) Music-introduction .469
8) Music-example 2.39
9) Graphics .167

Of 8 1

Chi-square necessary to be significant at the .05

level 8 3.841.

The only significant Chi-square statistic resulted from
the cross tabulation of group participation by positive or
negative response for the discussion segment of the
production. It was found that participants in the control
group were more likely to react positively to the discussion
segments than those in the experimental group.

To account for this variance, t-tests were performed to
find if there was any difference between groups on the five-

point likability scales from the interest questionnaire rating

53
Dr. Yelon and Stacey. No significant difference was found

(see Tables 15, 16, 17, and 18).

Table 15. Mean likability ratings for Dr. Yelon based on a

five-point scale.

EXEEBINENIAL QQNIBQL
N848 N850
Mean 8 4.063 Mean 8 3.94
8 76.575% 8 73.5%
Minimum 8 1 Minimum 8 2
Maximum 8 5 Maximum 8 5

Table 16. Two tailed t-test between response to the

likability scale by experimental and control groups for Dr.

Yelon.
EQQLED_EABIANQE_ESIIMAIE SEEABAIEJEMEUMEHIESIIMAIE
t 8 -.68 t 8 -.68
Probability 8 .496 (two Probability 8 .497 (two
tailed) tailed)
Of 8 96 Df 8 95.26

54

Table 17. Mean likability ratings for Stacey based on a five-
point scale.

EXPERIMENTAL

N 8 48

QQNTRQL
N 8 50
Mean 8 2.521 Mean 8 2.68
8 38.025% 8 42%
Minimum 8 1 Minimum 8 1

Maximum 8 5 Maximum 8 5
Table 18. Two-tailed t-test between response to five-point

likability’ scale Zby experimental and control groups for

Stacey.
PQQLED_!ABIAH§E_ESTIMAIE SEPABATEJHHEUQRHLESTIMATE
t 8 .74 t 8 .74

Probability = .461

Df 8 96

Probability 8 .461

Df 8 95.96

98

SPHERE!

Significant difference was found in learning achievement
between experimental and.control groups in favor’of'the "right
way/wrong way" presentation. This finding supports the first
hypothesis.

No significant difference was found between experimental

and.control groups where interesthas concerned, rejecting the

second hypothesis.

DISCUSSION

Summary

The results of the t-test comparing overall learning
achievement were interesting (and should be especially so for
instructional video producers), if not unexpected. There was
a significant difference between the results from the
experimental and control groups, favoring the experimental
("right way/wrong way") presentation technique for learning
achievement.

Of the sections of the learning achievement test dealing
with the primary recall learning objectives (sections A and
B), only Section B showed significant variance, lending
further’credibility'to the findings of’Nugent, et al (1980) in
that the material covered by Section A used advance organizers
in both treatments. The material covered by Section B of the
learning achievement test was not pre-emphasized by an advance
organizer, but was given extra emphasis in the negative
examples given in the "right way/wrong way" presentation.
This finding suggests that "right way/wrong way" presentations
offer an opportunity to organize and present information when
a production has used advance organizers and other techniques

to their fullest capability.

55

56

It also suggests that "right way/wrong way" presentations
may be especially useful in imparting information regarding
the consequences of a common error as the material covered in
Section B of the learning achievement test dealt exclusively
with the reasons for using a given step. It should be noted
that narrations to sum up and emphasize the results of these
steps were used.

Results from Sections C, D, and E concerning secondary
learning objectives also show significant variance in favor of
the ”right way/wrong way" presentation format. Sections C and

D'both concerned recognitive responses suggesting that "right
way/wrong way" presentations do, in fact, ingni;a_a_g:i§igal,
W in those viewers in regard to the

specific subject covered by the presentation.

There was no difference in Section E which concerned
secondary learning objectives of an applications nature, which
is not surprising, given the content of the presentations.
Both production treatments concerned a procedure that can be
applied to an infinite variety of situations, whereas if the
procedure had been applicable to a particular machine or
instance a presentation of this sort might be testable on the
application level.

The lack of significant variance between the interest
measures was not completely surprising, considering Brandon's
(1956) finding that interest and learning achievement were not
necessarily related. It is even more easily understood when

one considers that there was a significant correlation between

57
interest in the subject matter and interest in the video. As
expected, interest in the subject matter was evenly
distributed between groups, and as such, so was interest in
the video.

An interesting result was from the comparison of results
from the Production Feedback Questionnaire responses between
the experimental and control groups. All of the production
segments examined, save one, were insignificant showing no
variance between groups. The production segment that showed
significant variance was the discussion segment in favor of
the ”right way" presentation, which was confusing considering
.that no significant variance between groups was found in the
ratings for the likability of the two active elements in those
production segments: Dr. Yelon and Stacey. Were time the
specific variance accounting for this difference, one would
think that there would also be a difference in the other
production variable accounting for time: the example section.
There was, however, no such difference. This finding does,
however, seem to add further support to the finding of
Lumsdaine and Gladstone (1958) that showed higher learning
achievement and lower interest levels on the part of ninth
graders as a result of viewing dramatic presentations.

Further results from the Production Feedback
Questionnaire indicate that the "right way" group was more
confused by their treatment’than the ”right way/wrong" group.
Most of this variance seems in response to the opening

sequence. (Note - A certain amount of confusion was expected

58
in this segment due to its nature. The confused response was
often paired with a curious response.) This response is
difficult to understand unless the questions and objectives
posed in the ”right way" (which were the same as in the "right
way/wrong way" treatment) were not answered and addressed to
the satisfaction of the control group.

Disinterest was higher for the "right way/wrong way"
treatment and was mostly in response to the discussion
segments of the presentation. This suggests that the added
commentary became tedious to the "right way/wrong way”
viewers. The most popular segment treatment was the opening
where interest and curiosity'were the dominant responses. 'The
most popular segments in the "right way/wrong way" version
were the examples, indicating the contrast between the correct
and incorrect manner of accomplishing a task is intrinsically

more appealing to viewers.

Table 19. Breakdown of positive response expressed toward the

example segment of the experimental treatment.

Wang WEE—E
Involved 15 (25%)
Interested 14 (23.33%)
Content 12 (20%)
Curious 11 (18.33%)
Pleased 9 (15%)

The most unpopular segment of both video presentations

was the discussion segment. The concentration of responses in

59

both treatments was highest in the "indifferent" category,
followed by "disinterest,” and then ”preached to." This can
perhaps partly be attributed to the performance of Stacey,
which was considered by many viewers to be stiff and
unrealistic. It may also be that the commentary section is
just more naturally prone to lower ratings.
Conclusion

Greater learning achievement is facilitated in college
students by "right way/wrong way" video presentations than by
the producer's natural alternative to that form of presenta-
tion: the "right way" format. Greater interest, however, is
not a natural result of the "right way/wrong way" format.
Suggestions for Further Research

The negative instances presented in the "right way/wrong
way" version of the production were the common error most
likely to occur given the procedure being demonstrated. The
most common error in this case was the exclusion of the step
being demonstrated. The next question that needs to be
answered is whether "right way/wrong way" presentations do
facilitate greater learning or interest when the common error
is the actual mis-performance of the task being demonstrated.
It is suggested that further research be conducted in the use
of common errors and negative instances in the production of
instructional video programming.

Also, the treatments were testable on the recall,
recognition, and application levels, but not on the analytic

or synthetic levels. Further research needs to be devoted to

60
uses of matched example and nonexample pairs in the teaching
of pure concepts (perhaps in the areas of aesthetics,
psychology, physics, etc.) so as to be able to determine their

effects on the analytic and synthetic levels.

61

ME

Scripts presented in Appendix A and B were not adhered to
‘word-for-word in the actual video production, but any changes
were cosmetic in nature and did not alter the spirit and
intent of the information conveyed. The two appendices are
presented here to provide an understanding of the content
presented as well as a means to compare the structures of the

two scripts and their essential differences.

APPENDIX A
- SCRIPT A -
(RIGHT WAY - CONTROL)
"FOUR STEPS To EFFECTIVE DEMONSTRATION:

AN INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN GUIDE"

VIDEO

-OPENING-

EADE_QP_ERQM_SLA§K

Two hands manipulating rOpe

in front Of a black

background

Hand does quick knot trick

SLQH_ZQQH
into knot

62

AUDIO

MQSI§_HNDER
-DR. YELON-(VO)-

Watch this rope very
carefully, you're about to
see a trick performed with

it. In a blink Of an eye

. . . a knot is tied.
After seeing this trick
performed once, do you
think you're ready to try
it yourself? I wouldn't
think so. What would it
take for me to be able to

show you how to perform a

trick like this?

That's what we'll find out
in this program.

(W'

VIDEO
DISEQL¥E_IQ_£§=
Four Steps to Effective
Demonstration: An
Instructional Design Guide
DIEfiQL!E_IQ_§§=
with Stephen Yelon, Ph.D.
Professor of Educational
Psychology
Michigan State University
DISfiQL!E_IQ_§§EHE_l
SCENE 1-
IEEL—DBL—XELQELfi-QEEIQE
EHLL_§HQI_IHBH_DQQB
DR. YELON is sitting at his
desk working on the
computer, a figure (STACEY)
eclipses the frame.

W
STACEY

QHI_IQ_M§
DR. YELON looks up at

STACEY

63

.AUDIO

(MHEIQ_QHI)

-STACEY-

Dr. Yelon?

-DR. YELON-

0h, hi Stacey, how are you?

64

 

VIDEO AUDIO
-STACEY-
Pretty good, but I was
wondering if I could ask
you a couple of questions?
-DR. YELON-
Sure, come on in. What's
on your mind?

QHILIQ_H§

STACEY sitting down

SHI_IQ_H§

DR.

YELON

-STACEY-

Well, I've got a problem.
I'm working with a class,
and some of the things that
I need to teach them, well
. . . they just don't seem
to be getting the message.
It seems like no matter how
many times I explain to
them what they need to do,
they still don't understand

what I'm talking about.

That is is a problem. Let
me ask you this: Are you
demonstrating what you're

trying to teach?

65

 

VIDEO AUDIO

SDILIQ_M§

STACEY -STACEY-
Well, no. But it seems to
me that my explanations are
good ones, I take a lot of
time writing them before
class.

QHI_IQ_M§

DR. YELON -DR. YELON-

I'm sure your explanations
are great. But one
important aspect of the
design of a good lesson is
a demonstration. If you
are trying to teach someone
something, or you are
trying to communicate with
someone, you've got to add
a good demonstration to
your explanation. Students
simply cannot learn, and
people cannot understand
what you are saying and be
able to perform on the
simple basis of an explana-

tion. They've got to be

66

 

VIDEO AUDIO
able to see you perform, or
demonstrate the task.
SHI_IQ_M§
STACEY -STACEY-

STACEY starts to get up to

leave

SHI_IQ_M§
DR. YELON

INSEBI_£EIAKAX
STACEY sitting down

Right! I see. So if I
show them how it's done,
they should be able to do
it. Great, thanks Dr.

Yelon!

-DR. YELON-

Hold on a second Stacey.
Demonstration makes things
a lot easier for you as a
teacher, but there are a
few things you should know
about them before you try
one. You know, most people
think that demonstration is
simple, that it's easy.

But it can be very
difficult to show people
what you want them to do,

if all you needed was a

VIDEO

67

AUDIO
mere demonstration without
any sophistication or
finesse, then every one of
us could sink a basket like
Michael Jordan, dance like
Paula Abdul, or give a
speech like the President.
But I'll let you in on a
little secret, there are
four steps to an effective
demonstration. These four
steps will allow you to put
together a demonstration
where people are likely to
perform well, even on the
first try. They will know
what they are expected to
do and will be able to
monitor their own

performance.

68
VIDEO

DISfiQL¥E_IQ_§§fi

l-Tell students they will
perform task

z-Tell students what cues
to attend to

3-Say and then do
4-Students commit steps to

memory

DISfiQLZE_IQ_M§
DR. YELON

AUDIO
The first step is to tell
the students they will
perform the task you are
showing them after you
finish demonstrating.
The second step is to tell
the students what cues they

should attend to during

'your demonstration.

Which brings us to the
third step, say and then
do, as you demonstrate.

And finally, step number
four is to ask the students
to commit the steps to
memory before having them

perform the task.

So you see, demonstration
is very systematic, which.
is not to say that it isn't

creative as well.

69

 

VIDEO AUDIQ

QDI_TQ_H§

STACEY -STACEY-

I see. But I'm still not
sure I understand each of
the steps.

QHI_IQ_M§

DR. YELON -DR. YELON-

Let me take each step one
at a time, and start with
step number one.

-SCENE 3-

IHII_QEEIQE

W -DR. YELON-

DR. YELON The first step in a good
demonstration is to tell
your students that they
will perform the task they
are being shown. Which you
should remember because
I'll be asking you to state
all of these steps aloud
after I've demonstrated
them to you.

SHI_IQ_M§

STACEY, interested

-STACEY-

That's fair warning!

7O

 

_____YIDEQII AUDIO

QHI_IQ_H§
‘DB XEIQH'
Suppose I was teaching a
group of students how to
tie a bowline know . . .

DIEEQLYE_IQ_Q§

Tell students they will

perform

DISSQLYE_IQ_§§EEE_23

-SCENE 2b-

IHIL_£LA§§BQQH

EQLL_§HQI

DR. YELON in front of class -DR. YELON-

Now when I finish showing
you this knot you'll show
me how to tie it by

performing the task for me!

71
VIDEO

§HT_IQ_M§
DR. YELON doing trick

INSEBI_H§L§

Student's attentive faces

-SCENE 4b

QUI_IQ_M§
STACEY, interested

AUDIO,

-DR. YELON-(VO)-

Just look at how my
students pay attention when
I let them know they will
be expected to perform the
task after it is

demonstrated.

-DR. YELON-

The best way to demonstrate
a skill is to let the
student know which cues to
pay attention to before you
show them that particular
part of the skill.

-STACEY-

Which is.the second step!

72

 

VIDEO AUDIO
gn1_19_n§
DR. YELON -DR. YELON-
Exactly!
DI§§9L2E_IQ_Q§=

Tell students what cues to

pay attention to

DIEfiQLYE_TQ_§QEHE_§B
-SCENE 5b-
IHII_§LA§§BQQM
EHLL_§HQI
-DR. YELON-
IE5£BI_M§;§ Now pay attention to these
student's faces steps. First, I take this

part of the rope this way.
Second, I slip this part of
the rope in the opposite
direction . . . and there
you go! It's really very
simple.
IEEEBI_YQI__DBI_XELQH
Whether you use a diagram,
a list or just tell your
students what to do,
students will know what to
look for if you let them

know what to attend to, as

73

 

VIDEO AUDIOI,
we'll see when I ask
Barbara to recall the steps
for me.
EHLL_§HQT

DR.

YELON in front of class

erases board

QHI_IQ_M§

of class,

hand

SHI_IQ_M§

DR.

YELON

STUDENT B raises

Now how about a volunteer
from the class to tell us
what the important steps of
this knot are?

OK, why don't you tell us?

-STUDENT B-

OK, let's see . . . first
you take one side one way

. . . second you take the
other side the opposite way

. . . and that's it!

-DR. YELON-

Great!

74

 

VIDEO AUDIO
SHI.IQ.§QENE.§§
-SCENE 6a-
IHII_QEEIQE
W ‘ 'DR- YELON-

So the second step is to
tell the students what to

pay attention to before you

demonstrate.
QHI_IQ_MS
STACEY -STACEY-

I see.
Q!I.IQ.H§
DR. YELON -DR. YELON-

The third step is to
stagger the visual and the
verbal, say and then do as

you demonstrate.

VIDEO
DI§§QLYE_IQ_Q§=
Say and then do.
DIEEQLYE_IQ_§£EEE_ZB
-SCENE 7b-
INII_§LA§§BQQM

HEDIHH_§HQI
DR. YELON demonstrating

trick, saying, and then

doing

STUDENT C raises hand
DR. YELON approaches

STUDENT C

yAUDIO

-DR. YELON-

First you take this part of
the rope to the right . . .
. . . like that, second you
take the other part of the
rope and slip it to the
left . . . like that, and
there you go--it's that
simple.

-DR. YELON-

Now who thinks they can
tell me the important steps
to tying this knot?

-DR. YELON-

OK, why don't you tell us?

VIDEO

CHI_IQ_M§
STUDENT c

§HI_TQ_EQEHE_§2
-SCENE 8b-
IE1L—QEEIQE
MEDIHM_§EQI

76

AUDIO

-STUDENT C-

Sure. First you take the
one side to the right, and
then you take the other
side and slip it to the
left, and you're done.
-DR. YELON-(VO)-

Students are less confused
and know what to look for
when you say what you want
them to do, and then show

them how to perform.

-DR. YELON-

After you demonstrate a
skill you should always
have your students commit
the steps of that skill to

memory.

77
VIDEO AUDIO

DISEQLYE_IQ_§§=

Students commit steps to
memory

\ DISEQLYE_IQ_§QEEE_2B
-SCENE 9b-
IHII_QLA§§BQQM

MEDIHH_§EQI
DR. YELON in front of

class, finishing knot.
-DR. YELON-
And there you have it. Now
I want all of you to commit
those steps to memory, and
then we'll see if you all

can do it.

IEEEBI_QHIAKA1§ MH§I§_EQLL
Students faces,

concentrating

SHI_IQ_H§ MQ§I§_QQI
DR. YELON -DR. YELON-

OK, is everybody ready?
Good then let's see if we
can get somebody to try it

out.

78

 

AVIDEO __AUDIO

QQI;IQ_L§

DR. YELON approaches

STUDENT D Why don't you try it for
us?

SHI_IQ_ME

STUDENT D attempts knot -STUDENT D-

successfully Well, okay. Let's see,
first you take this side of
the rope this way . . . and
then you take this side of
the rope the opposite way
. . . and that's it!

QQI_IQ_§QEEE_19

-SCENE 10-

IEIL_QEEIQE

MEDIUM_§fiQI -DR. YELON-

When you get the students
to commit the steps to
memory, you're getting them
to create a mental model to
work from. This model can
be used by the student to
judge whether or not they
are conforming to the task.
Your students may not be

able to perform the task

79

 

VIDEO .AUDIO

perfectly, but they will
have everything they need
to practice on their own.

QEI.IQ_H§

STACEY -STACEY-
That's great!

QEI_IQ_M§

DR. YELON - DR. YELON -
So, now that I've
demonstrated the four steps
of good demonstration to
you, why don't you commit
them to memory.

§HI_IQ_H§

STACEY concentrating

QQI_IQ_M§

DR.

YELON

-STACEY-

Okay, I think I've got it.

-DR. YELON-
Alright, why don't you tell

me what the steps are.

80
VIDEO

DIEEQLYE_IQ_§§=

l-Tell students they will
perform the task.

2-Tell the students what to
attend to.

3-Say, and then do.
4-Students commit steps to

memory.

DIEEQLYE_TQ_H§
STACEY

QHI_IQ_ME

DR. YELON

QHILIQ_L§
STACEY getting up, shaking

hands with DR. YELON

AUDIO
-STACEY-(VO)-
First, tell the students
they will perform the task
being demonstrated.
Second, tell the students
what to attend to. Third,
you should say and then do,
as you demonstrate. And
fourth, you should ask the
students to commit the

steps you have just

demonstrated to memory.

-STACEY-

Well this is great, I can
see right away that I'll be
putting these principles to
use quite a bit.

-DR. YELON-
If you do, I'll guarantee

your demonstrations will be

very effective!

(MQ§I§_EQLL)

81
VIDEO AUDIO

DI§§QLYE_IQ_Q§=

Produced and Directed by
Tom McCarthy
DIEEQLYE_IQ_Q§=

Written by

Stephen Yelon, Ph.D., and

Tom McCarthy (MH§19_QEI)

APPENDIX B
- SCRIPT B -
(RIGHT WAY/WRONG WAY - EXPERIMENTAL)
"FOUR STEPS TO EFFECTIVE DEMONSTRATION:

AN INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN GUIDE"

VIDEO

-OPENING-

EADE_HR_EBQM_BLAQK

Two hands manipulating rope
in front of a black

background

Hand does quick knot trick

ELQE_ZQQM
into knot

82

AUDIO

MQSIQ_HHDEB
-DR. YELON-(V0)-

Watch this rope very
carefully, you're about to
see a trick performed with

it. In a blink of an eye

. . . a knot is tied.

After seeing this trick
performed once, do you
think you're ready to try
it yourself? I wouldn't
think so. What would it
take for me to be able to
show you how to perform a

trick like this?

That's what we'll find out
in this program.
(MUSIQ_H£_EQLLI

VIDEO
DIEEQLYE_HE_IQ_§§=
Four Steps to Effective
Demonstration: An
Instructional Design Guide
DI§§9L23_IQ_Q§=
with Stephen Yelon, Ph.D.
Professor of Educational
Psychology
Michigan State University
DIESQLYE_IQ_§§EHE_1
SCENE l-
ELDE_QE_IQ_YIDEQ
IHIL_DBL_XELQHL§_QEEIQE
EHLL_§HQT_IHBH_DQQB
DR. YELON is sitting at his
desk working on the
computer, a figure (STACEY)
eclipses the frame.

QHI_IQ_M§
STACEY

§QI_IQ_H§
DR. YELON looks up at

STACEY

83
AUDIO

(MH§I§_QQI)

-STACEY-

Dr. Yelon?

-DR. YELON-

Oh, hi Stacey, how are you?

84

 

VIDEO AUDIO

QHI_IQ_M§

STACEY -STACEY-
Pretty good, but I was
wondering if I could ask
you a couple of questions?

QHI_IQ_H§

DR. YELON -DR. YELON-
Sure, come on in. What's
on your mind?

QHI_IQ_HS

STACEY sitting down

-STACEY-

Well, I've got a problem.
I'm working with a class,
and some of the things that
I need to teach them, well
. . . they just don't seem
to be getting the message.
It seems like no matter how
many times I explain to
them what they need to do,
they still don't understand

what I'm talking about.

85

 

VIDEO AUDIO

QMI_IQ_M§

‘DR. YELON That is a problem. Let me
ask you this: Are you
demonstrating what you're
trying to teach?

.QHI_IQ_MS

STACEY -STACEY-
Well, no. But it seems to
me that my explanations are
good ones, I take a lot of
time writing them before
class. '

SEELJEIJTE

DR. YELON -DR . YELON-

I'm sure your explanations
are great. But one
important aspect of the
design of a good lesson is
a demonstration. If you
are trying to teach someone
something, or you are
trying to communicate with
someone, you've got to add
a good demonstration to
your explanation. Students

simply cannot learn, and

W
STACEY

STACEY starts to get up to

l eave

SEZLJEIJEE
DR” YELON

JJESEBI_§HTAEAX
STACEY sitting down

AUDIO
people cannot understand
what you are saying and be
able to perform on the
simple basis of an explana-
tion. They've got to be
able to see you perform, or

demonstrate the task.

-STACEY-

Right! I see. So if I
show them how it's done,
they should be able to do
it. Great, thanks Dr.

Yelon!

-DR. YELON-

Hold on a second Stacey.
Demonstration makes things
a lot easier for you as a
teacher, but there are a
few things you should know
about them before you try
one. You know, most people

think that demonstration is

VIDEO

87

AUDIO
simple, that it's easy.
But it can be very
difficult to show people
what you want them to do,
if all you needed was a
mere demonstration without
any sophistication or
finesse, then every one of
us could sink a basket like
Michael Jordan, dance like
Paula Abdul, or give a
speech like the President.
But I'll let you in on a
little secret, there are
four steps to an effective
demonstration. These four
steps will allow you to put
together a demonstration
where people are likely to
perform well, even on the
first try. They will know
what they are expected to
do and will be able to
monitor their own

performance.

88

 

VIDEO AUDIO
DISSQLVE_IQ_Q§: The first step is to tell
l-Tell students they will the students they will
perform task perform the task you are
2-Tell students what cues showing them after you
to attend to finish demonstrating.
3-Say and then do The second step is to tell
4-Students commit steps to the students what cues they
memory should attend to during

your demonstration.
Which brings us to the
third step, say and then
do, as you demonstrate.
And finally, step number
four is to ask the students
to commit the steps to
memory before having them
perform the task.
DI§§QL23_IQ_M§
DR. YELON So you see, demonstration
is very systematic, which
is not to say that it isn't

creative as well.

89

 

VIDEO AUDIO

QEI_IQ_ES

STACEY -STACEY-
I see. But I'm still not
sure I understand each of
the steps.

QHI_IQ_n§

DR. YELON -DR. YELON-

Let me take each step one
at a time, and start with
step number one. Suppose
was teaching a group of
students how to tie a

bowline knot . . .

90
VIDEO AUDIO

DISEQLYE_IQ_Q§=
Tell students they will

perform: wrong way

DI§§QL23_IQ_§QEHE_ZA

-SCENE 2a-

IHII_QLA§§BQQH

EHLL_§HQI

DR. YELON demonstrating -DR. YELON-(V0)-

knot Notice that when I don't

WIS tell them they will perform

inattentive. my students are not paying
any attention.

SHI_IQ_§QEHE_1

-SCENE 3-

IHII_QEEIQE

MEDIHM_§HQI 'DR- YELON-

DR. YELON ' The first step in a good

demonstration is to tell
your students that they
will perform the task they
are being shown. Which you
should remember because
I'll be asking you to state
all of these steps aloud
after I've demonstrated

them to you.

91

 

VIDEO AUDIO
QET.IQ.E§
STACEY, interested -STACEY-

That's fair warning!
DIEEQLYE_IQ_§§=
Tell students they will

perform: right way.

DISEQLYE_IQ_§QEHE_ZB

-SCENE 2b-

IHII_QLA§§BQQM

EHLL_§HQI

DR. YELON in front of class -DR. YELON-
Now when I finish showing
you this knot you'll show
me how to tie it by
performing the task for me!

QHI_IQ_M§

DR. YELON doing trick

INSEBI_§§L§

Student's attentive faces
-DR. YELON-(V0)-
See how your students pay
attention when you let them
know they will be expected
to perform the task after
it is demonstrated. They

may not be able to perform

92

 

VIDEO AUDIO

the task perfectly yet, but
they're ready to try.

QQI_IQ_§§EEE_A§

-SCENE 4a-

IHII_QE£IQE

HEDIQM_§HQI 'DR- YELON-
One of the things that
might also be a problem is
that students sometimes pay
attention to the wrong
cues,

SHILID_H§

STACEY, interested like with the bowline

knot . . .

93
VIDEO

DISSQLYE_IQ_£§=

Tell students what cues to
pay attention to: wrong
way
DISEQLYE_IQ_§QEEE_§A
-SCENE Sa-
IHII_QLA§§BQQH

EQLL_§HQT
DR. YELON rolls up sleeves,

rubs hands together, and
begins knot.

INSEBT_E§L§
student's faces

EQLL_§HQI

QDT_IQ_L§
of class, STUDENT B raises

hand.

AUDIO

-DR. YELON-(V0)-

With any given task, there
are all sorts of cues that
students might pay
attention to that have
nothing to do with actually
performing the task.

-DR. YELON-

Now, how about a volunteer
from the class to tell all
of us what the important

steps are for tying the

knot.

0K, why don't you tell us?

94

 

VIDEO AUDIO
QHT_TQ_n§
STUDENT B at table. -STUDENT B-

QHI_IQ_M§
STACEY, interested

SHI_IQ_H§

DR.

YELON

Let's see, first you roll
up your Sleeves and rub
your hands . . . then the
first step is to . . . hmmm

-DR. YELON-

The best way to demonstrate
a skill is to let the
students know which cues to
pay attention to before you
show them that particular

part of the skill.

-STACEY-

Which is the second step!

-DR. YELON-

Exactly!

95
VIDEOI, AUDIO

DISEQLYE_TQ_Q§=
Tell students what cues to

pay attention to: right way

DISEQLYE_TQ_§£EEB_§B
-SCENE 5b-
INTI_QLA§§BQQE
EQLL_§EQT

-DR. YELON-

Now pay attention to these
IE§£31_QU;§ steps. First, I take this
student's faces part of the rope this way.

Second, I slip this part of
the rope in the opposite
direction . . . and there
you go! It's really very
simple.
IHEEBI_YQL__DBI_XELQH
Whether you use a diagram,
a list or just tell your
students what to do,
students will know what to
look for if you let them
know that to attend to, as
we'll see when I ask
Barbara to recall the steps

for me.

VIDEO

EQLL_§HQI
DR. YELON in front of'class

QQI_IQ_M§
of class, STUDENT B raises

hand

§HI_IQ_H§
DR. YELON

AUDIO

Now how about a volunteer
from the class to tell us
what the important steps of

this knot are?

OK, why don't you tell us?

-STUDENT B-

OK, let's see . . . first
you take one side one way

. . . second you take the
other side the opposite way

. . . and that's it!

-DR. YELON-

Great!

97

 

VIDEO AUDIO
£HI.IQ_§§EHE_§§
-SCENE 6a-
IHII_Q£EI§E
HEDIHM_§HQI ‘ “DR- YELON-

So the second step is to
tell the students what to

pay attention to before you

demonstrate.
QHT_TQ_EE
STACEY -STACEY-

I see.
CHI_TQ_M§
DR. YELON -DR. YELON-

The third step is to
stagger the visual and the
verbal, say and then do as

you demonstrate.

98
VVIDEO AUDIO

DI§§QLYE_IQ_§§=

Say and then do: wrong way.
DISSQLYE_IQ_§QEEB_ZA
-SCENE 7a-

INTI_§LA§§BQQM

MEDIHH_§HQT
DR. YELON tying knot -DR. YELON-(V0)-

simultaneously speaking as Let me tell you what

he performs happens when you show and
tell at the same time . . .
-DR. YELON-
First you take this part of

the rope this way,

QEI_IQ_£Q

of hands then you take this part of
the rope and slip it in the
opposite direction, and
there you go, now who
thinks they can tell me the
important parts of the
task?

QHI_TO_LS

STUDENT C raises hand

QQI_IQ_MS ‘ -DR. YELON-

DR. YELON Yes, how about you?

99

 

__YIDEQ AUDIQ

§HI_IQ_M§

STUDENT C -STUDENT C-
First you kind of pull the
rope around and . . . well
you sort of get it so that
you can . . . geez, I
missed the part where you .
. . It looked so simple
when you did it . . . How
did you do that again?

QET_IQ_§§EHE_§2

-SCENE 6b-

IHII_QEEI§E

MEDIHH_§HQI 'DR- YELON-

Well, of course nobody
could tell me, it's too
confusing when you don't
say what you want the
student to do, and then
show them how to perform.
Right now let's go over the
results you get when you
say and Lngn do, as you

demonstrate.

VIDEO
DIEEQLYE_IQ_§§=
Say and then do: right
way.
DI§§QLKE_IQ_§§EHE_ZB
-SCENE 7b-
IEII_QLA§§BQQH
MEDIHH_§HQI
DR. YELON demonstrating
trick, saying, and then

doing

DR. YELON approaches

STUDENT C

AUDIO

-DR. YELON-
First you take this part of

the rope to the right . . .

. . . like that, second you
take the other part of the
rope and slip it to the
left . . . like that, and
there you go--it's that

simple.

-DR. YELON-

Now who thinks they can
tell me the important steps
to tying this knot?

-DR. YELON-

OK, why don't you tell us?

VIDEO

STUDENT C

QQI_TQ_§§EHE_§§
-SCENE 8a-
IHII_QEEIQE

MEDIHM_§HQI
DR. YELON

101

AUDIO

-STUDENT C-

Sure. First you take the
one side to the right, and
then you take the other
side and slip it to the
left, and you're done.
-DR. YELON-(V0)-

Students are less confused
and know what to look for
when you say what you want
them to do, and then show

them how to perform.

-DR. YELON-

Now I've got a true or
false question for you:
students should perform the
task they are learning
immediately after it is

demonstrated to them?

102

 

VIDEO AUDIO

§HI_IQ_H§

STACEY -STACEY-
True, they should perform
the task while it's still
fresh in their memory.

§HI_IQ_H§

DR. YELON -DR. YELON-
Well here's what happens
when you have them perform
immediately after seeing
the task demonstrated.

DISSQLYE_IQ_§§=

Have students commit steps
to memory: wrong way.
DISSQLYE_TQ_§§EEE_EA
-SCENE 9a-

INTI_QLA§§BQQM

UEDIHM_§HQI
DR. YELON finishing knot

-DR. YELON-

And there you have it. So
why don't we have someone

tn it 0 O O

VIDEO

QQI_TQ_L§
DR. YELON approaches

STUDENT D at desk

SHI.TQ.M§
STUDENT D takes rope

-SCENE 8b-

DIEEQLYE_IQ_§§=
Students commit steps to

memory: right way.

103

AUDIO

Here you go, why don't you

try it?

-STUDENT D-

OK, let's see, first you
take this side this way

. . . then you . . . hmmm
. . . I can't remember,

what was step two?

-DR. YELON-

After you demonstrate a
skill you should always
have your students commit
the steps of that skill to

memory.

104
VIDEO AUDIO

DISEQLYE_IQ_§§EHE_23

-SCENE 9b-

IEIL_QLA§§BQQM

HEDIHH_§HQI

DR. YELON in front of

class, finishing knot.
-DR. YELON-
And there you have it. Now
I want all of you to commit
those steps to memory, and
then we'll see if you all
can do it.

§HI_IQ_M§L§ (MH§I§_EHLL)

Students faces,

concentrating

£HILIQ.M§ (MHEIQ_QQI)

DR. YELON -DR. YELON-
OK, is everybody ready?
Good then let's see if we
can get somebody to try it
out.

QHI_IQ_L§

DR. YELON approaches

STUDENT D Why don't you try it for

us?

105

 

VIDEO AUDIO

QHI_IQ_H§

STUDENT D attempts knot -STUDENT D-

successfully Well, okay. Let's see,
first you take this side of
the rope this way . . . and
then you take this side of
the rope the opposite way
. . . and that's it!

QHI_IQ_H§

DR. YELON smiling.

QHI_IQ_§QEHE_IQ

-SCENE 10-

IEII_QE£I§B

HEDIHM_§HQI 'DR- YELON-

When you get the students
to commit the steps to
memory, you're getting them
to create a mental model to
work from. This model can
be used by the student to
judge whether or not they
are conforming to the task.
Your students may not be
able to perform the task

perfectly, but they will

106

 

VIDEO .AUDIO

have everything they need
to practice on their own.

QEI_IQ_H§

STACEY -STACEY-
That's great!

Q!I.IQ.H§

DR. YELON -DR. YELON-
So, now that I've
demonstrated the four steps
of good demonstration to
you, why don't you commit
them to memory.

QUI_IQ_MS

STACEY concentrating

§HI_IQ_M§
DR. YELON

-STACEY-

Okay, I think I've got it.

-DR. YELON-
Alright, why don't you tell

me what the steps are.

VIDEO
DIEEQLYE_IQ_Q§=
l-Tell students they will
perform the task.
2-Tell the students what to
attend to.
3-Say, and then do.

4-Students commit steps to

memory.

DISSQLYE_IQ_E§
STACEY

QEI_TQ_H§

DR. YELON

QHI_IQ_L§
STACEY getting up, shaking

hands with DR. YELON

107

AUDIO
~STACEY-(VO)-
First, tell the students
they will perform the task
being demonstrated.
Second, tell the students
what to attend to. Third,
you should say and then do,
as you demonstrate. And
fourth, you should ask the
students to commit the

steps you have just

demonstrated to memory.

-STACEY-

Well this is great, I can
see right away that I'll be
putting these principles to
use quite a bit.

-DR. YELON-
If you do, I'll guarantee

your demonstrations will be

very effective!

(MH5I9_EQLL)

 

108
VIDEO ' AUDIO

DISEQLYE_IQ_Q2§=
Produced and Directed by
Tom McCarthy
DIESQLYE_IQ_§§=

Written by

Stephen Yelon, Ph.D., and

Tom McCarthy (HH§I§_QQI)
W

APPENDIX C
EVALUATION INSTRUMENT
(LEARNING ACHIEVEMENT TEST, PRODUCTION
FEEDBACK QUESTIONNAIRE, INTEREST QUESTIONNAIRE,

AND DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY)

LEABNIE§_AQHIEYEMEHI_IE§I£

(SECTION A, RECALL-PRIMARY LEARNING OBJECTIVE, 4 POINTS)*

1. Number and list each of the demonstration steps you
learned in the video you just saw.

(SECTION B, RECALL-PRIMARY LEARNING OBJECTIVE, 4 POINTS)*

2. For each of the demonstration steps you listed, give a
reason why to use it.

(SECTION C, RECOGNITION-SECONDARY LEARNING OBJECTIVE,
4 POINTS)*

For each of the following pairs of demonstration descriptions,
indicate which is the correct way to demonstrate by putting a
check next to either the "A" or the "B."

3. A) A rodeo instructor lassos a fence post by
twirling the rope and then directing the rope
with his arm as he releases with his hand.

_ B) A rodeo instructor tells you he is going to
twirl the rope, which he does, then he tells
you he will release the rope and direct it
with his hand, which he does.

* Does not appear on actual test.

109

110

A) A surgery instructor asks his class to silently
review the steps for dissecting a frog.

B) A surgery instructor reviews the steps for
dissecting a frog with his class.

A) A.math instructor tells the class that one or two
people will have to perform the steps to solve a
problem on the board.

B) .A math instructor tells the students that each
will have to show they can solve a problem.

A) A sales manager shows trainees how to overcome
objections by role playing.

B) A sales manager shows trainees what to look for
during a role-play by showing a videotape with
the steps that are being performed in subtitles.

(SECTION D-RECOGNITION, SECONDARY LEARNING OBJECTIVE, 3

POINTS)*

Answer each question briefly.

7.

Guitar players in your workshop show more style than
technique, taking "heavy-metal" poses while they finger
the fretboard incorrectly. What step was most likely
missing from your demonstration?

Students in your math class are able to remember all
the steps to long division days after you have taught
them the steps, not just while you are demonstrating.
What is the most likely demonstration step that would
account for this?

Some of your students are talking to each other when
you enter the classroom but they all stop talking when
you begin to demonstrate how to use the wood lathe.
What demonstration step‘ did you probably include to
achieve this result?

APPENDIX D

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

111

(SECTION E, APPLICATION-SECONDRY LEARNING OBJECTIVES, 4

10.

11.

POINTS)*

You need to demonstrate a technique to college seniors
to impress potential employers. Based on what you saw
in the video you just watched and using the
demonstration model you just learned, briefly describe
how you would demonstrate the following series of
steps:

1. Look interviewer in the eye
2. Shake hands firmly

3. Speak clearly when greeting the interviewer

You are showing your grandparents how to play back a
videotape on their new VCR. Based on what you saw in
the video you just watched and using the demonstration
model you just learned, briefly describe how you would
demonstrate the following series of steps:

1. Turn the power on
2. Load the cassette into the VCR

3. Press play

112
PRODUCTION FEEDBACK QUESTIONNAIRE*

For each part of the program, check any responses that apply.

 

When I watched this
part of the program, I
felt:

Curious
Indifferent
Preached to
Involved
Confused
Content
Pleased
Displeased
Interested

Disinterested

 

The opening (where the
hands performed the
rope trick)

 

The discussion
(between Dr. Yelon and
Stacey)

 

The examples (Dr.
Yelon in the
classroom)

 

The narrations (when
Dr. Yelon's voice
spoke over top of the
examples)

 

The transitions from
discussion scenes to
examples

 

The transition from
example to discussion
scenes

 

Music during the
introduction

 

Music before the
examples

 

Graphics used before
the examples

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

113
INTEREST QUESTIONNAIRE*

- What did you like about the video you saw?
- What did you dislike about the video?
- How did you feel about Dr. Yelon? 1 2 3 4 5
Liked Disliked
- How did you feel about Stacey? 1 2 3 4 5
Liked Disliked
- How interested were you in the
subject matter? 1 2 3 4 5
Very much Not
very much
- How interesting did you think this
video was? 1 2 3 4 5
Very Not very
interesting interesting

When Stacey recalled the demonstration steps to herself, did you attempt
to do so also?

Yes

NO

DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY*
Age
Major

Year in college
(Freshman - 1
Sophomore a 2
Junior = 3
Senior - 4
Grad lst year = 5
etc.)

 

 

Grade point average (round off to nearest .5)

Sex M ____F

LEARNING ACHIEVEMENT TEST SCORES - ANALYSIS

EXREBIMEHIAL
N I 48
Mean I 15.01
Variance - 8.601
Minimum 2 7
Maximum = 19
Standard error = .423
Standard deviation = 2.933

Skewness = -l.016

QQNIBQL
N a 50
Mean I 13.12
Variance a 9.761
Minimum - 7
Maximum = 18
Standard error = .442
Standard deviation = 3.124

Skewness a -.454

T-TEST BETWEEN EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL GROUPS ON
LEARNING ACHIEVEMENT TEST
BQQLED_YABIAEQE_E§IIMAIE fiEBABAIE_YABIAH§E_E§IIMAIE
T a -3.09 T 3 -3.09
Degrees of freedom 3 96 Degrees of freedom 3 95.95
2 tailed probability a .003 2 tailed probability a .003

1 tailed probability a .0015 1 tailed probability = .0015

114

115
T-TEST BETWEEN EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL GROUPS ON

SECTION A OF THE LEARNING ACHIEVEMENT TEST

EQQLED_YABIAN§E_E§IIMAIE §EEABAIE_YABIAE§E_E§IIMAIE
T a -1.05 T a -1.06
Degrees of freedom 2 96 Degrees of freedom = 92.98

2 tailed probability a .296 2 tailed probability = .294

l tailed probability - .148 l tailed probability = .147

T-TEST BETWEEN EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL GROUPS ON

SECTION B OF THE LEARNING ACHIEVEMENT TEST

EQQLED_YABIANQE_E§TIEATE §ERABAIE_YABIANQE_E§TIEAIE
T = -3.15 T = -3.14
Degrees of freedom - 96 Degrees of freedom - 91.59

2 tailed probability a .002 2 tailed probability = .002

1 tailed probability a .001 1 tailed probability = .001

T-TEST BETWEEN EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL GROUPS ON

SECTION C OF THE LEARNING ACHIEVEMENT TEST

RQQLED_YABIAN£E_E§IIEAIE 5ERABAIE_YABIAE£E_E§IIMATE
T - -3.06 T a -3.07
Degrees of freedom = 96 Degrees of freedom a 91.24

2 tailed probability a .003 2 tailed probability = .003

l tailed probability a .0015 1 tailed probability = .0015

116
T-TEST BETWEEN EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL GROUPS ON

SECTION D OF THE LEARNING ACHIEVEMENT TEST

EQQLED_YABIANQE_E§IIMAIE §EBABAIE_YABIAHQE_§§IIMAI§
T = -l.95 T = -1.96

Degrees of freedom 3 96 Degrees of freedom = 95.95

2 tailed probability = .054 2 tailed probability = .053
l tailed probability = .027 1 tailed probability = .0265

T-TEST BETWEEN EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL GROUPS ON

SECTION E OF THE LEARNING ACHIEVEMENT TEST

EQQLED_YABIANQE_E§IIHATE fiEEARLIEIYAEIANQE_E§IIEAIE
T = -1.19 T = -1.19
Degrees of freedom = 96 Degrees of freedom = 94.34

2 tailed probability a .237 2 tailed probability = .235

1 tailed probability = .1185 1 tailed probability = .1175

INTEREST IN VIDEO SCALE RATINGS ANALYSIS
N MEAN S.D. ASLE.
Experimental 48 3.063 .954 .138

Control 7 50 3.10 .974 .138

117
T-TEST OF RESPONSES TO INTEREST IN VIDEO SCALE RATINGS
:90. I :; 4x .. '.:; Vi; .. 43_
T I .19 T 3 .19
Degrees of freedom - 96 Degrees of freedom = 95.96
2 tailed probability a .848 2 tailed probability a .848
l tailed probability a .424 l tailed probability a .424

INTEREST IN SUBJECT SCALE RATINGS ANALYSIS

 

 

N MEAN S.D. 51E;
Experimental 48 2.979 1.041 .150
Control 50 3.04 1.106 .156

T-TEST OF RESPONSES TO INTEREST IN SUBJECT SCALE

8&9. l v.; :e 4;. _ ';i; a V:& 4. a 1;
T a .28 T a .28
Degrees of freedom - 96 Degrees of freedom a 95.97

2 tailed probability a .780 2 tailed probability = .780

1 tailed probability a .390 l tailed probability = .390

DR. YELON LIKABILITY SCALE RATINGS ANALYSIS
N MEAN S.D. S.Et
Experimental 48 4.06 .909 .131

Control 50 3.94 .867 .123

118

T-TEST OF RESPONSES TO DR. YELON LIKABILITY RATINGS

an9_ I 4: §\ 4} ':;: ‘V:& i- , .,11.
T - -.68 T = -.68
Degrees of freedom = 96 Degrees of freedom = 95.26

2 tailed probability a .496 2 tailed probability = .497
1 tailed probability a 1 tailed probability =

STACEY LIKABILITY SCALE RATINGS ANALYSIS

 

N MEAN S.D. .IS.E.
Experimental 48 2.521 1.031 .149
Control 50 2.68 1.096 .155

T-TEST OF RESPONSES TO STACEY LIKABILITY RATINGS

390. D :1 :x - 4; 'i;& V;;,; y:
T a .74 T - .74
Degrees of freedom a 96 Degrees of freedom 8 95.96

2 tailed probability a .461 2 tailed probability = .461

1 tailed probability a .2305 1 tailed.probability'= .2305

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ali, A. M. (1981) , The Use of Positive and Negative Examples
during Instruction.

Wt, vol. 5. Cited by Marcone, S., and
Riegeluth, C. M. (1988), Teaching Common Errors in
Applying a Procedure, ' 0 'ca '

, vol. 36.

Baggaley, Jon and Duck, Steven W. (1974) , Experiments in
ETV: Effects of Adding Background, Egneetienel

MW vol 7-

Barbatsis, Gretchen S. and Wong, Martin R. (1977) , The
Production Feedback Questionnaire: Measurement of
Viewer Effective Involvement with the Medium of

Television. WW
genie, vol. 4.

Bentti, F. E., Golden, A. R., and Riegeluth, C. M. (1983),
Teaching Common Errors in Applying a Procedure. IDD&E
Working Paper no. 17. School of Education, Syracuse
University. ERIC ED 289 464.

Blain, B. B. (1956) , Effects of Film Narration and of
Listenability on Learning Factual Information.
Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington.
Cited by Chu, Godwin, and Schramm, Wilbur (eds. , 1967) ,

.-—. '1' LOU. ‘ Wits-1'2: !- i“‘
Institute for Communication Research, stanford
University. ERIC ED 014 900.

Bourne, L. E., Goldstein, S., and Link, W. E. (1964),
Concept Learning as a Function of availability of
Previously Presented Information, IQBIEQL___QI

W. vol. 67-

Brandon, James R. (1956), An Experimental Television Study:
The Relative Effectiveness of Presenting Factual
Information by the Lecture, Interview, and Discussion

Methods, W. vol- 23-
t

119

120

Brown, R. D., Brown, L. A., and Danielson, J. E. (1975),
Instructional Treatments, Presenter'Types, and Learner
Characteristics as Significant Variants in
Instructional Television for .Adults. gentne1__efi

W vol 67-

Cherubini, A. (1964) , The Contribution of the Producer-
Director in Improving Instruction. In Griffith, B. L. ,

and MacLennan. D- W- (eds ) MW
Ieleyieien. Columbia, Missouri: University of

Missouri Press.

Chu, Godwin, and Schramm, Wilbur (eds., 1967), Leetning_fzem

v 5' ° . Institute for
Communication Research, Stanford University. ERIC ED
014 900.

Clarke, D. C. (1971), Teaching Concepts in the Classroom:
A Set of Teaching Prescriptions Derived from
Experimental Research. W1
W. 1101- 62-

Cobin, M. T., and McIntyre, C. J. (1961), The Development
and Application of a New Method to Test the Relative
Effectiveness of Specific Visual Production‘Techniques
for Instructional Television. USOE project no. 448.
Urbana: University of Illinois.

Coldevin, Gary 0. (1978) , Experiments in TV Presentation
Strategies, WW1.
vol. 11.

Coldevin, Gary 0. (1980), Formative Research in Television
Strategies: Guidelines for Effective Production, In

Baggaley, Jon (ed. ), EIQQQGQIDQS e: the Thing

’l 1" !"l ""_ Q Q

TelexiSed_Instrustign ERIC ED 225 561.

Connolly, C. P. Jr. (1962) , An Experimental Investigation of
Eye Contact on Television. M. A. thesis, Ohio
University, Athens, Ohio. Cited by Chu, Godwin, and
Schramm, Wilbur (edS- . 1967) . W
W, Institute for Communication
Research, Stanford University. ERIC ED 014 900.

Costello, L. F., and Gordon, G. N. (1961), W
Ieleyieien. New York: Hastings House.

Crow, 14- L- (1979). W- Fort Worth:

Texas University Press.

121

Detmeier, H. J., Sheehan, A. C., and Decker, H. (1963), An
Investigation of Concept Development in Elementary
School Teaching by Television. NDEA.Title VII project
no. 527, Boston: Boston University Press. Cited by

Chu, Godwin, .and Schramm, Wilbur (eds. , 1967) , W
. Institute for

Communication Research, Stanford University. ERIC ED
014 900.

Diamond, R. M. (1968), Instructional Television in
Perspective. In‘Weisgerber, R. A. (ed.) Inettnetienel
. Chicago: Rand McNally

and Company.

Dietz, D. (1955), The Facilitating Effect of Words on
Discrimination and Generalization, Jen:nel___efi

W. vol- 50-

Duck, Steven W. and Baggaley, Jon (1974), Research Notes:
ETV Production Methods Versus Educational Intent-Some

Unintended Biases. 2W3
Internatienal. vol 7 .

Duck, Steven W. and Baggaley, Jon (1975a), Research Notes,
Experiments in ETV: Interviews and Edited Structure,

W. vol 8-

Duck, Steven W. and Baggaley, Jon (1975b), Research Notes:
Experiments in ETV: Effects of Camera Angle,

WWW. vol. 8-

Ellery, J. B. (1959), A Pilot Study of the Nature of
Aesthetic Experiences Associated with Television and
Its Place in Education. Detroit: Wayne State
University.

Feldman, K.‘V. (1972), The Effects of Number of Positive and
Negative Instances, Concept Definition, and Emphasis of
Relevant Attributes on the Attainment of Mathematical
Concepts. lPaper'presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
Cited in Tennyson, R. D., and Park, 0. C. (1980), The
Teaching of Concepts: A Review of Instructional Design

Research Literature. 8WD.
vol. 50.

Garduno, A. 0., Marcone, S., and Riegeluth, C. M. (1984),
Teaching Common Errors in Applying a Procedure. IDD&E
Working Paper no. 18. School of Education, Syracuse
University. ERIC ED 289 465.

122

Gnagey, J. W. (1982), Learning from Instructional
Television: Production.Techniques for Instruction and
Appeal. M.A. thesis, Michigan State University.

Goss, A. E., and Moylan, M. C. (1958), Conceptual
Blocksorting as a Function of Type and Degree of
Mastery of Discriminate Verbal Responses, Jentnel_et
genet1e_£ey_helegy, vol. 93. Cited by Clarke, D. C.
(1971), Teaching Concepts in the Classroom: A Set of
Teaching Prescriptions Derived from Experimental

Research. I9urnal_Qf_Educational_£§¥cholog!. vol. 62-

Grant, D. A. (1951) , Perceptual Versus Analytic Responses to
the Number of Concept of a Weigl-Type and Sorting Test,

WW. vol. 41-

Greenhill, Leslie P. (1964), Research on Instructional
Television, Past and Future. In Griffith, B. L., and
MacLennan. D- W-. (eds) WW
Teleyieien. Columbia, Missouri: University of
Missouri Press.

Griffith, B. L., and MacLennan, D. W., eds., 1964)
' ' , Columbia,
Missouri: University of Missouri Press.

Gropper, G. L. (1983) , A Behavioral Approach 'to
Instructional Prescription. In Riegeluth, C. M. (ed.) ,
'on es' ° '

Wm. Hillsdale. N-J-= Lawrence
Erlbaum Association.

Haygood, R. C., and Devine, J. V. (1967), Effects of
Composition of Positive Category on Concept Learning,
, vol. 74.

Haygood, R. C., and Stevenson, M. (1967), Effects of Number
of Irrelevant Dimensions in Nonconjunctive Concept

Learning- WWW. vol. 74-

Jassal, R. S., and'Tennyson, R. D. (1981-82), Application of
Concept Learning Research in the Design of

Instructional SystemS. WIN—52f
W. vol- 9-

Kantor, B. R. ( 1960) , Effectiveness of Inserted Questions in

Instructional Films. Wiggins
8:11.91. vol 8-

Kaplan, R. (1963), Teaching Problem-Solving with Television
to College Freshmen in Health Education. ‘Qieeettetien
ADESIAQIE. vol. 23, 3224.

123

Kazem, A. K. M. (1961), An Experimental Study of the
Contribution of Certain Instructional Films to the
Understanding of the Elements of Scientific Method by
Tenth Grade High School Biology Students. Dim

Ahetneete, vol. 21, 3019.

Ketcham, C. H., and Heath, R. W. (1963), The Effectiveness
of an Educational Film Without Direct Visual

Presentatim of Content- Wm
Bexieg, vol. 11.

Klausmeier, H. J., Ghatala, E.S., and Prayer, D. A. (1974),

. n . . . . '

Academic Press, New York, New York. Cited in Jassal,

R. S., and Tennyson, R. D. (1981-82), Application of

Concept Learning Research in the Design of
Instructional Systems,

W. vol. 9-

Klausmeier, H5 J., and. Meinke, D. L. (1968), Concept
Attainment as a Function of Instructions Concerning the
Stimulus Material, a Strategy and a Principle for

Securing Information. W
W. vol 59-

Laughlin, P. R. (1965), Selection Strategies in Concept
‘ Attainment as a Function of Number of Relevant Problem

Attributes . WW. vol -

71.

Lasser, S. (1955), The Impact.of‘Visual Aid Displays Showing
A Manipulative Task. Won
Beyiey, vol. 3 (abstract).

Lim-Quek, M., Motik, I., and Riegeluth, C. M. (1985), The
Effect of Principle-Procedure and Procedure-Principle
Sequencing on Learning Outcomes. IDD&E Working Paper
no. 19. ERIC ED 289 466.

Lumsdaine, A. {A., and. Gladstone, A. I. (1958), Overt
Practice and Audio-Visual Embellishments. In May, M.
A-. and Lumsdaine. A- A- (eds.) W

New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.

Macomber, P., and Harmony, T. (1980), Audiovisual Study
Guide. An independent presentation for PTA 265,
College of Arts and Sciences and Center for
Instructional Development, Syracuse University,
Syracuse, New York. Cited by Garduno, A. O., Marcone,
S., and Riegeluth, C. M. (1984) , Teaching Common Errors
in Applying a Procedure. IDDEE Working Paper no. 18.
School of Education, Syracuse University. ERIC ED 289
465.

124

Marcone, S., and Riegeluth, C. M. (1988), Teaching Common

Errors in Applying a Procedure, Egneetienel
MW. vol. 36.

Markle, S. M., and Tiemann, P. W. (1969), Beelly
WW- Champaign. Illinois: Stipes.
Cited by Tennyson, R. D., Woolley, F. R., and Merrill,
M. D. (1972), Exemplar and Nonexemplar Variables Which
Produce Correct Concept Classification Behavior and

Specified Classification Errors, WW].
mum. vol. 63-

May, M. A. (1968), Word Picture Relationships. In
Weisgerber, R. A. (ed.) '
Inneyetien. Chicago: Rand McNally and Company.

May, M. A., and Lumsdaine, A. A. (eds., l958a)(Le_zning_fiten
Eilne. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.

May, M. A., and Lumsdaine, A. A. (1958b), Areas and Problems
of Research in Learning from Films. In May, M. A. , and

Lumsdaine. A- A- (edS-) W. New

Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.

McCreary, J. Y. B. (1963), Factors Affecting the Attainment
of Conjunctive and Disjunctive Concepts in Third Grade
Children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Pittsburgh. Cited by Clarke, D. C.
(1971), Teaching Concepts in the Classroom: A Set of
Teaching Prescriptions Derived from Experimental

Research. WW. vol. 62.

McKinney, C. W. (1985), A Comparison of the Effects of a
Definition, Examples, and Nonexamples on Student
Acquisition of the Concept of "Transfer Propaganda,"

W. vol. 49-

Meaney. John W- (1962) . W- The Fund
for the Advancement of Education. Cited by Crow, M. L.
(1979). W Fort Worth: Texas

University Press.

Merrill, M. David and Tennyson, Robert D. (1977), Teething

' ° ' ° , Englewood

Cliffs, New Jersey. Educational Technology
Publications.

125

Miller, J., and Levine, S. (1952), A Study of the Effects of
Different Types of Review and of ‘Structuring' Sub-
Titles on the Amount Learned from a Training Film.
Humaanesources Research Laboratories, memo report no.
17. Washington, D.C.: U. 8. Air Force Human Resources
Research Laboratories. Cited by Chu, Godwin, and
Schramm Wilbur (eds-. 1967) . W
ghet_the_3e§eeteh_§ey§. Institute for Communication
Research, Stanford University. ERIC ED 014 900.

Miller, J., Levine, S., and Sternberg, J. (1954) , The
Effects of Different Kinds of Review and Sub-Titling on
Learning from a Training Film: A Replicative Study.
Unpublished staff research memorandum, Air Force
Personnel and Training Research Center, Training Aids
Research Laboratory. Cited by Chu, Godwin, and
Schramm Wilbur (eds-. 1967) . W
Eh§£_£h§_3§§£§I£h_§§Y§- Institute for Communication
Research, Stanford University. ERIC ED 014 900.

Northrup, D. S. (1952), Effects on Learning of the
Prominence of Organizational Outlines in the
Instructional Film. Technical report SDC 269-7-33,
WW- Port Washington.
N.Y.: U.S. Naval Special Services Center. Cited by
Chu, Godwin, and Schramm, Wilbur (eds., 1967) , Learning

' ' ' . Institute
for Communication Research, Stanford‘University. ERIC
ED 014 900.

Nugent, G. C., Tipton, T. J., and Brooks, D. W. (1980), Use
of Introductory Organizers in Television Instruction.

W. vol 74-

Paluzzi, James V. (1980), Interest and Presentational

Formats. In Baggaley. _Jon_ (ed ). We

9 I -'! "I ' '1'! - x“‘t 9

ERIC ED 225 561-

Phillips, M. J. (1964), The Contribution of the Producer-
Director in Improving Instruction. In Griffith, B. L. ,

and MacLennan. D- W- (ed8-) WW
Ieleyieien. Columbia, Missouri: Missouri University
Press.

Pishkin, V., and Wolfgang, A. (1965), Number and Types of
Available Instances in Concept Learning, W

W. vol. 59.

126

Rankin, R. E. (1954), Inter-Concept Stimulus Similarity and
Formation of Simple Concepts. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Ohio State University. Cited by Clarke,
D. C. (1971), Teaching Concepts in the Classroom: A
Set of Teaching Prescriptions Derived from Experimental

Research. Jeurnal_ef_Edneetienel_2exeheleex. vol. 62.

Riegeluth, C. M. , Merrill, M. D. , and Bunderson, C. V.
(1978) , The Structure of Subject Matter Content and Its

Instructional Designk Implications, (Inetznetienel
Science. vol 7-

Rock, R. T., Duva, J. S., and MUrray, J. E. (1951a), The
Effectiveness of Television Instruction in Training
Naval Air Reservists. Technical report SDC 476-02-82.

' . Port Washington,
N.Y., Long Island, N. Y. U.S. Naval Special Services
Center. Cited by Chu, Godwin, and Schramm, Wilbur
(eds., 1967), ' ' °
. Institute for Communication Research,
Stanford University. ERIC ED 014 900.

Rock, R. T., Duva, J. S., and Murray, J. E. (1951b), A Study
of Learning and Retention from Television Instruction
Transmitted to Army Field Force Reservists. Technical
report SDC 476-02- 83- .Inetruetienel_JE1_JEsssusai
Regents. Port Washington, N.Y., Long Island, N.Y.
U.S. Naval Special Services Center. Cited by Chu,
Godwin, and Schramm, Wilbur (eds, 1967), Leetning_tten

v' ' ' . Institute for
Communication Research, Stanford University. ERIC ED
014 900.

Salomon, Gavriel and Cohen, Akiba A. (1977), Television
Formats, Mastery of Mental Skills, and the Acquisition

of Knowledge. Jeurnal_ef_Edueetienel_2exehelegx. vol.

69.

Sanderson, R. A. (1968), The Motion Picture: Communication
Channel for Information, Concepts, Skills, and

Attitudes. In Weisgerber, R. A. (ed.), Inettnetienel
2reeeee_end_uedie_1nnexatien- Chicago= Rand McNallY

and Company.

Schwarzwalder, J. C. (1960), an Investigation of the
Relative Effectiveness of Certain Specific TV
Techniques in Learning. U.S. Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare. ERIC.ED 014 913.

Sechrest, L., and Kaas, J. s. (1965), Concept Difficulty as
a Function of Stimulus Similarity, Jentne;__ej

Educatienel_£exenelegx. vol 53-

127

Shumway, Richard J., White, Arthur, Wilson, Patricia, and
Brombacher, Bruce (1983), Feature Frequency and
Negative Instances in Concept Learning,

Edueetienel_Beeeereh_Jeurnel. vol 20.

Tennyson, R. D. (1971), Instructional Variables Which
Predict Specific Learner Concept Acquisition and
Errors. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C.
Cited by Tennyson, R. D., and Park, 0. C. (1980), The
Teaching of Concepts: A Review of Instructional Design
Research Literature. W.
vol. 50.

Tennyson, R. D. (1973), Effective of Negative Instances in
Concept Acquisition Using a Verbal Learning Task,
, vol. 64.

Tennyson, R. D., and Park, 0. C. (1980), The Teaching of
Concepts: A Review of Instructional Design Research

Literature. Bex1ew_ef_Edueetienal_Beeeereh. vol 50-

Tennyson, R. D., Woolley, F. R., and Merrill, M. D. (1972),
Exemplar and Nonexemplar Variables Which Produce
Correct Classification Behavior and Specified

Classification Errors. Jeurnal___ef___Edneatienal
Eexebelegx. vol- 63-

Tierney, J. D. (1980), The Evolution of Televised Reading
Instruction. Journel_ef_§emmunieetien. vol 30-

Tondow, Murray (1968) , The Emerging Educational Triad: Man-
Machines and Instruction. In Weisgerber, R. A. (ed. )
' . Chicago:

Rand McNally and Company.

Trowbridge, J. E., and Mintzes, J. J. (1985), Students
Alternative of .Animals and .Animal Classification,

Seheel_§eienee_and_uetnemetiee. vol. 85-

Underwood, B. J., and Richardson, J. (1957), Verbal Concept
Learning as a FUnction of Instructions and Dominance

Level. Ieurnel_ef_Exper1mental_£exehelegx. vol. 51.

Weiner, A. B. (1967), The Effect of a Learning Strategy on
Memory Information, and Intelligence in Concept
Attainment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Massachusetts. Cited by Clarke, D. C.
(1971), Teaching Concepts in the Classroom: A Set of
Teaching Prescriptions Derived from Experimental

Research. Jeurnel_ef_Edueetienel_£_Yehelng. vol. 62.

128

Weisgerber, R. A. (1968),
Inneyetien. Chicago: Rand McNally and Company.

Westley, B. H'., and Mobius, J. B. (1960), The Effects of
‘Eye Contact' in Televised Instruction. Research
bulletin no. 14. Madison: university of Wisconsin
Television Laboratory. Cited by Chu, Godwin, and
Schramm Wilbur (eds. 1967) . Ieamingjmmjelexieiem
flhet_the_3eeeeteh_§eye. Institute for Communication
Research, Stanford University. ERIC ED 014 900.

Williams, D. C., Paul, J., and Ogilvie, J. C. (1957), Mass
Media, Learning, and Retention. genegien_len;ne1_ef
W. vol- 11-

Zillman, Dolf and Bryant, Jennings (1980), Uses and Effects
of Humor in Educational Television, In Baggaley, Jon
(ed). Wild—W21

01 ‘ ‘l e 0! 40‘ IL‘! (“‘o. 9 '1‘ ‘ 1‘0.

Inettnetien. ERIC ED 225 561.

Zillman, Dolf, Williams, B. R., Bryant, Jennings, Boynton,
K. R., and Wolf, M. A. (1980), Acquisition of
Information from Educational Television Programs as a
Function of Differently Paced Humorous Inserts.

WWW. vol 72-

 

xflrfiu

 

 

‘-'IM-" — '. ,

"I7111!!!!11111111’1'“