)V1ESI.] RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to LJBRARJES remove this checkout from -—;-—_ your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. \fi‘fififike EFFECTS OF STUDENTS' SEATING DISTANCE AND ANGLE FOR VIEWING A FILM IN THE CLASSROOM ON THEIR PERCEPTION OF INFORMATION By Irfe V. de Camargo A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partiaI fquiIIment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Counseling. Educationa1 PsychoIogy, and Specia1 Education (EducationaI Systems DeveIOpment) 1985 3.3::3". L/ /(:‘) Copyright by IRFE V. DE CAMARGO 1985 ABSTRACT EFFECTS OF STUDENTS' SEATING DISTANCE AND ANGLE FOR VIEWING A FILM IN THE CLASSROOM ON THEIR PERCEPTION OF INFORMATION By Irfe V. de Camargo The main purposes of this study were to investigate the effects of students' seating distance and viewing angle from the screen's central focus. and of cues given before showing an instructional film. on their amount of perceived information in terms of visual discrimina- tion learning (VDL) and listening comprehension (LC). 'Two research instruments. (a) The Inventory and (b) The Performance Tests. were developed and administered to 124 college students enrolled in a family child ecology class at Michigan State University. 'The Inventory Test was responded to before showing of a film. and part of it was also used as a pre-test. 'The Performance Test was divided into two parts (a multiple-choice on the film content. and open questions on students' self-evaluation after viewing the film). Seating distance and viewing angle did not produce significant effects on students! perception of information (VDL + LC). Region in the classroom did affect the students who received cues before viewing the film. Irfe V. de Camargo Based on the findings of the study. the following major conclu- sions were drawn: (1) seating distance and seat's angle from the screenhs central focus in front of the room do not have a significant effect on students! amount of perceived information presented through- out a film; (2) the region of the room does matter when the student has cues before viewing the film. Based on the findings and conclusions of the study. recommenda- tions included the following: (1) to measure the effects of seating distance and viewing angle. more concrete variables should be used as indices of students' perception of information (VDL + LC); (2) to measure the effects of classroom regions. more concrete variables should be used as indices of students' perception of information (VDL + LC); C3) better scales should be developed to investigate distance. viewing angle. and cue effects on students' perception of information; and (4) further research on perception of information should be under- taken in terms of visual discrimination learning and listening compre- hension (which is affected by seat's distance and angle). and giving cues when using different audiovisual instructional resources in the classroom. This dissertation is dedicated to my father. my teacher. and my friend. FERNANDO. "com saudades"; my mother. IRACEMA. with respect and love; my youngest niece and nephew. JUSSYMARA and RICARDO. with hope. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS It is impossible to acknowledge individually all those who have positively influenced my professional life. for there are many. but three of them are at the top of my list: Katherine Benner and Dr. Coradel Hamilton. for their guidance and valuable suggestions throughout my entire bachelor's degree study of home economics in Brazil; and Mary Louise Foster. while in Brazil. for her understanding and guidance when I changed my professional goals. and for being my advisor and friend throughout my master's degree study at Purdue Uni- versity. ‘They were my professors. whose dedication and love for their work in home economics in Brazil extended beyond classroom activities. I would also like to thank Dr. James L. Page (committee chair. advisor. dissertation director. and friend) for his patience and under- standing and for his continued encouragement. support. valuable advice. and direction which have guided me during the entire doctoral program and through the completion of this project. Thanks are also due to the other committee members. Drs. Peggy Riethmiller (my very special friend). Castelle Gentry. Steve Raudenbush. and Ted Ward. for their guidance and valuable suggestions throughout my entire doctoral pro- gram. I truly appreciate the assiStance I received from Andrew F. Clark. who did the first editing. and Dr. James McComb. a statistical consultant. during the preparation of this dissertation. Special gratitude is offered to the Federal University of Vicosa. which gave me permission to work toward my doctoral degree and granted a time extension when I needed it to complete this work. Appreciation is also extended to the Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior (CAPES). which sponsored me during the entire doctoral program. A very special note of gratitude is reserved for my family: my sister Irfem Junia and her family for taking care of our mother; my sister Irfea for her spiritual support during these long years; and my brother Irfeo for his love. patience. and understanding of my personal problems. Gratitude is extended to the Fosters. the Fishers. and the Marcums. my foster families in the United States. for their emotional support and encouragement throughout my doctoral program. Last but not least. my thanks go to Prof. Jose Henrique de Oliveira for his patience and good work in keeping my financial situa- tion organized and up to date and to Susan Cooley for editing and typing this dissertation. The contributions made to this work are numerous. but the shortcomings are my responsibility. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES O ....... O ......... O O O O O O O v11 LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ . . . . x LIST OF GRAmS O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O l 0 x1 Chapter I. INTRODUCTION AND RATIONALE OF THE STUDY . . . . . . . . l IntrOdUCtion O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1 Statement of the Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Purposes of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Importance of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 L1m1tat1°ns Of the StUdy O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O 6 Hypotheses O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 10 Definition of Important Terms . . . . . ..... . . 10 Summary and Overview . . . . ...... . . . . . . . 12 II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 III. "Emws MD PRmEDURES O O O O O C O O O C O O O O O O O 27 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Experimental Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Procedures in Experimental Setting One . . . . . . 30 Procedures in Experimental Setting Two . ..... . 31 The Pilot Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Pilot Study One . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Pilot Study Two . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 The Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 TheSubJects..................... 35 Demographic Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Physical Condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 College Educational Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Background in Human Biology . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Experimental Settings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 IV. V. Experimental Setting Experimental Setting Instrumentation . . . The Inventory Test . The Performance Test Seat Location . . . Statistical Analysis . Summary . . . . . . . STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Analysis of Data Hypothesis 1 . Hypothesis 2 . Hypothesis 3 . Discussion . . . Summary . . . . Page One . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Two . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 . . . . . . . ....... . 46 . . . . . ...... . . . . . 46 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 OF RESULTS AND DISCUSSION . . . . . 59 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . lO7 SUMMARY. FINDINGS. CONCLUSIONS. AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . 109 Summary . . . . . Findings . . . . . Conclusions . . . Recommendations . APPENDICES O C O O O O 0 O O A. B. C. D. Tm LES O O O O O O O SCRIPTS . . . . . . RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS REASONS FOR CLASSROOM SEATING PREFERENCE FOR VIEWING AN INSTRUCTIONAL FILM O O O O O O O O O O C O O O O O 109 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 11] O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 113 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 114 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 116 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 117 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 127 O O O O O C O I O O O O O O O O 142 O O I O O O O C O O O O O C O O 167 BIBLImRAmY O O O O O O O 0 O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O 17] vi ll. 12. 13. 14. 15. l6. LIST OF TABLES Pilot-Study Schedule Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . Demographic Data on Subjects in Pilot and Experimental stUdy Groups I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Physical Condition of Subjects in Pilot and Experimental StUdy Groups I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I College Educational Level of Study Participants . . . . . Subjects' Background in Human Biology . . . . . . . . . . Independent Variables Used as Predictors in the Multiple-Regression Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis of Variance for the Multiple Correlation Between the Independent Variables and the TOTAL (VDL+LC) scores I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Summary of Multiple-Regression Data for TOTAL (VDL+LC) scores 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 Confidence Interval for TOTAL (VDL+LC) Scores . . . . . . Analysis of Variance for the Multiple Correlation Between the Independent Variables and LC Scores . . . . . . . . Summary of Multiple-Regression Data for LC Scores . . . . Confidence Interval for LC Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis of Variance for the Multiple Correlation Between the Independent Variables and the VDL Scores . . Summary of Multiple-Regression Data for VDL Scores . . . . Confidence Interval for VDL Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary Statistics for TOTAL (VDL+LC) Scores: Hypothesis 3.1a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii Page 35 36 37 38 39 6O 64 65 67 69 69 71 73 74 76 87 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. ANOVA Results for TOTAL (VDL+LC) Scores: Hypothes1s 3IIa I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Summary Statistics for LC Scores: Hypothesis 3.Ib . ANOVA Results for LC Scores: Hypothesis 3.Ib . . . Summary Statistics for VDL Scores: Hypothesis 3.Ic ANOVA Results for VDL Scores: Hypothesis 3.Ic . . . Summary Statistics for TOTAL (VDL+LC) Scores: Hypothesis 3.IIa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ANOVA Results for TOTAL (VDL+LC) Scores: Hyp°th651s 3IIIa I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Summary Statistics for LC Scores: Hypothesis 3.IIb ANOVA Results for LC Scores: Hypothesis 3.IIb . . . Summary Statistics for VDL Scores: Hypothesis 3.IIc ANOVA Results for VDL Scores: Hypothesis 3.IIc . . Summary Statistics for TOTAL (VDL+LC) Scores: Hypothesis 3.IIIa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ANOVA Results for TOTAL (VDL+LC) Scores: Hypothesis 3.IIIa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary Statistics for LC Scores: Hypothesis 3.IIIb ANOVA Results for LC Scores: Hypothesis 3.IIIb . . Summary Statistics for VDL Scores: Hypothesis 3.IIIc ANOVA Results for VDL Scores: Hypothesis 3.IIIc . . Summary Statistics for TOTAL (VDL+LC) Scores: HypOth651s 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ANOVA Results for TOTAL (VDL+LC) Scores: Hypothesis Summary Statistics for LC Scores: Hypothesis 3 . . ANOVA Results for LC Scores: Hypothesis 3 . . . . . viii Page 87 88 89 9O 9O 91 92 93 94 94 95 96 97 97 98 98 99 100 101 101 38. 39. A-1o A-2 . A-3 . A-4 . A-S . Summary Statistics for VDL Scores: Hypothesis 3 . . ANOVA Results for VDL Scores: Hypothesis 3 . . . . Systematic Numerical Order of the Numbered Seats Randomly Assigned Previously . . . . . . . . . . . Demographic Data Frequency . . . . . . . . . . . . . Score Distribution on Pretest . . . . . . . . . . . Students' Reasons for Personal Seating Preferences . Means and Standard Deviations of Variables Used in Th1s Stu dy I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Frequency Distribution of Seating Distance From the Screen's Central Focus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Frequency Distribution of Seat's Angle From the Screen's Central Focus in the Experimental Setting Page 102 102 118 119 121 122 123 124 125 LIST OF FIGURES Figure . Page 1. Students' Seating Position in a Straight-Row Arrangement for 100 Seats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Straight-Row-Seating Classroom Arrangement for Projecting an Instructional Film. Identified by Reg1ons I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 8 3. Straight-Row-Seating Spatial Arrangement for Projecting an Instructional Film. Identified by Angles in a Horizontal Plane. in Front of the Room . . . . . . . . 9 4. Diagram Illustrating the Seats Randomly Assigned in Experimental Setting One . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 5. Diagram Illustrating Seat-Number Distribution in Experimental Setting Two . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 6. Straight-Row Classroom Spatial Arrangement in Experi- mental Setting One . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 7. Measuring Distance Between Row and Column of Seats . . . 43 8. Diagram of Assigned Seats in Experimental Setting Two . . 45 9. Measuring Distance and Angle From SCF to Seat's Center in Experimental Setting Two . . . . . . . . . . 53 lO. Locating the Center of the Rectangle . . . . . . . . . . 52 ll. Experimental Setting Two Arranged for Students' Personal Seating Preference for Viewing an Instructional Film . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 12. Experimental Setting Identified by Regions: Front Region I. Action Region II. and Rear Region III . . . . 62 Graph LIST OF GRAPHS Predicting TOTAL (VDL+LC) Scores When DISTANCE Predicting LC Scores When DISTANCE = 1 . . . . . Predicting VDL Scores When DISTANCE = l . . . . Predicting TOTAL (VDL+LC) Scores When ANGLE = l Predicting LC Scores When ANGLE = l . . . . . . Predicting VDL Scores When ANGLE = l . . . . . . TOTAL (VDL+LC) Mean Scores by CUES/Region . . . LC Mean Scores by CUES/Region . . . . . . . . . VDL Mean Scores by CUES/Region . . . . . . . . . xi Page 66 7O 75 78 81 84 103 103 104 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION AND RATIONALE OF THE STUDY W Human beings. as living organisms. have been considered open systems because they function together as a whole to maintain life and its activities in their environment. Sociologists have studied this functioning in terms of the relationship and adjustment of human beings to the environment. As organized systems. human beings follow certain principles. They define. or reserve for themselves. personal space in their environment. making this space known to other human beings. ‘Thus. it has been assumed that protection of personal space is a mechanism used for controlling. not only social interaction (Patterson. 1981) but also informational processes (Biggs. 1968). Being imbued with meaning. spatial arrangement is also assumed to affect the attitude and behav- iors of those in a specific environment (Patterson. 1981). The principle of defining or reserving personal space can also be applied to the classroom situation and its "confined territory" (Wang. 1972). According to Sommer (1967)). the theory of classroom ecology concerns all factors that may affect (1) the physical environment. such as room dimension and shape. room density. and spatial arrangements; (2) methods of teaching and learning. consistent with the nature and type of activity; and (3) the students and their individual- and emotional-space arrangements. Given this delineation of classroom ecology. sociologists have assumed that different spatial arrangements of the classroom (exy. traditional straight-row. horseshoe. or circular arrangements) will influence students! seating preferences. depending on the subject matter and/or instructional activities (94}! educational psychology lecture. individualized instruction through videotape. instructional videotape production. slides. or film projection). Therefore. it seems reasonable to assume that a studentfls test performance will depend. among other things. on his/her attention and visual field--the area a person can see with his/her head and eyes held stationary. It is important to note that "the area of detailed vision is quite small" (Goldstein. 1975. p. 36). It seems appropriate to question how much information is perceived by students seated in dif- ferent positions in the classroom. One method of measuring the effect of seating position on students' perception of information is through the use of a graph. as depicted in Figure l. where. for instance. 1. One student occupies seat number 100 of the LEFT side of the ROOM (RLS). in column 1 and row an by the exit door of the classroom; and 2. Another student occupies seat number 9 on the RIGHT side of the room (RRS). in column a and row u. by the wall. In other words. the student in seat number 1(100hn would be. in a horizontal plane. at the RIGHT side of the SCREEN (SRS). 16.97 feet ' l\ 90" on I I I I a n Lil a II n in 069 um 1 05:- um. SG-Sennmufl'acu l-bvu Runner m-scmnnrtsm 's'u I Icahn-n ql-Icnulwlln- ‘I'u'u In. 0 lanthanum“:- so'n-wum-mmpeu L - eft R = rIght Figure 1. --Students' seating position in a straight- row arrangement for 100 seats. from the screen's central focus (SCF). at 17 degrees RS (i.e.. from the right side of the screen in front of the classroom). The student in seat number a(9)u would be. in a horizontal plane. at the LEFT side of the SCREEN (SLS). 33.5 feet from the screenhs central focus (SCF). at 68 degrees LS (ixa. from the left side of the screen in front of the classroom). mm The problem of the study was to determine whether students bearing the same entering behaviors and ability learn at a different rate from a sound motion instructional film because their seating positions--distance and angle--from the screen's central focus in front of the classroom are different. W The purposes of this study were as follows: 1. To examine the possible effects of students' seating posi- tion on their performance in perceiving information (visual discrimina- tion learning/listening comprehension) when viewing an instructional film in a straight-row classroom arrangement. 2. To investigate students' personal preference for seating distance and angle from the SCF when viewing an instructional film in a straight-row classroom arrangement. 3. To analyze the possible effects of students' seating posi- tion in a straight-row classroom arrangement on their perceived infor- mation (visual discrimination learning/listening comprehension). as related to (a) distance of seats and viewing angle from the screenks central focus in the front of the classroom and (b) cues given to the students before viewing the instructional film. W The investigator taught and supervised student teachers in a Brazilian university during the 1979-80 school year. The students' internships were carried out in local junior and senior high schools. During that year. the researcher began to observe the learners' seating positions as well as their behavior and attitude toward the instruc- tors and instructional media used in the classroom. The writer observed that instructors were so eager to teach the subject content that they did not have time to notice whether the students were seated in an optimal position to view the media presentations in front of the room. The room's shape (narrow or wide) and the number of students in the classroom affected the spatial arrangement of the classroom. Hence. a straight row in the same floor plane was the only possible spatial arrangement. Thus. the physical condition of the room was not adequate for screening visual materials. Patrie (1966) called media specialists' attention to the problem of learner seating for viewing projected media (films and television) and to the lack of research on this matter; The few studies done on instructional television are mentioned in Chapter II of this study. The importance of the present study to educational technology is that it should bring together the management of ideas. procedures. and hard and softwares (l) for planning physical devices (projected and nonprojected instructional media) that mediate information transmis- sion. (2) for planning and organizing students' seating distance and viewing angle from the screenhs central focus and in accordance with the hard and soft instructional media to be used in the classroom. and (3) for timing tasks to be developed in class by students seated at different distances and viewing angles from the central focus of the instructional media being used. In conducting this study. it was assumed that classroom ecology. including methods of teaching. the use of instructional media. and physical spatial arrangement. should be designed carefully and planned by the instructor and the educational technologist. according to the subject matter being taught. An effort was made to obtain necessary information on students' personal preferences for seating location. related to distance and viewing angle from the screenus central focus. when exposed to a film projection in the classroom. The main purpose of the study was to examine the effects of students' seating-position distance and angle from the screen's central focus on their performance in perceiving information when viewing an instructional film in a straight-row classroom arrangement. Results of this study should help media specialists and teachers seat their students in more optimum locations to perceive and retain projected information. Wading The study was carried out on an experimental basis. The sample used was a group of 124 undergraduate students enrolled during Fall Term 1984 in a Family Child Ecology course in the College of Nursing at Michigan State University (MSUL. The main limitations. in addition to the selected film and its content. were as follows: (1) the audience could be classified as a sophisticated group of students who had developed their own habits and styles for learning from film projection in the classroom; (2) most students had had previous experience with the content of the filnu Except for seven students who had not taken any course in human biology. all of the students in the sample had taken at least one course in the filnfls subject matter (human biology area); (3) the cues' effect was limited by subjects' experience with the film content. For the pilot study. samples were drawn from under- graduate and graduate students (master's and doctoral degree candi- dates) enrolled for Summer and Fall Terms 1984 in different programs and colleges at MSU. In the present study. by changing the approach to seating- position regions identified in a horizontal plane by angle (94}: 30. 60. and 90 degrees) and distance measured in feet from the screenks central focus in front of the room. it seemed reasonable to assume that the student's perceived information (VDL/LC) would be affected by his/her seating position in the classroom. as depicted in Figures 2 and 3. LR 8 LM LF CR CM E :;bm IVER-N ufign EB' - -8.- «a .o. o II I I O l IIl 2'3“ 'I flfififl .aa. an no 12$ ”Egg“ BEER new? left rear of room left middle of room left front of room center rear of room center middle of room CF RR RM RF center front of room right rear of room right middle of room right front of room Figure 2.--Straight-row-seating classroom arrangement for projecting an instructional film, identified by regions. 80° 70° 9 i II- uneanpgnnnunn‘ 60’ nunnmainumflnn-S0° I - Emlnpngnumaud 40° . 30° 20° '10° Figure 3.--Straight-row-seating spatial arrangement for projecting an instructional film, identified by angles (at left and right from SCF) in a horizontal plane, in front of the room. 10 tLvmtbeses The following research hypotheses were formulated to test the data collected in this study: Hypothesis 1: Holding constant the studentfls angle of vision and other key independent variables. the farther the student is from the screen's central focus. the more information he/she will perceive. Hypothesis 2: Holding constant the studentfls seat distance from the screen's central focus and other key independent variables. the smaller the seat's angle on the left or the right side of the screen's central focus in a horizontal plane in front of the room. the less information the student will perceive. Hypothesis 3: Students who receive cues h§£9£§ a film is shown will perceive more information than those who receive no cues. The interaction effects involving distance. angle. and cues were also studied. W The following terms are defined in the context in which they are used in this dissertation: ‘Ag119n_§ea1§--Those seats "in the front and center seating positions of a classroom" (Totusek & Staton-Spicer. 1982. p. 162). ,Qlassnggm_egglggy--The physical environment. including room dimension and shape. room density. and spatial arrangements; the meth- ods of teaching and learning in accordance with the nature and type of activity; and the students and their individual and emotional spatial arrangements (Sommer. 1967L Enylngnment--The physical territorial area surrounding a person "in relation to certain social-psychological dimensions" (Liben. Patterson. & Newcombe. 1983. p. 228% 11 .Egyeal_grea—-"The part of the human retina that is specialized for detailed vision" (Levine & Shefner. 1981. p. 73). Inigmmatigna1_pngcess--The process by which an individual perceives. thinks about what he has perceived. and behaves (Biggs. 1968). Ljsjgning_ggmp£enen§19n HID--Interpreted similarly to perceived information; that is. a viewer's experience of meaningful information through listening. which imposes a qualitative approach on the viewer. Manor-A viewer's previous experience of meaningful information. which inherently imposes a qualitative approach on the viewer in creating new insights;(Csikszentmihalyi & Rochberg- Halton. 1981). Eggjpnenal_11§19n--"The area of vision lying just outside the line of direct sight" (Webster. 1979. p. 1057); vision that falls in the peripheral retina. responding when the lights are dim--details are not seen (Kaufman. 1979). .Eersgnal_§pag§--"A form of territoriality found in humans--a flexible. portable area surrounding an individual which has been viewed as a '1ine of demarcation'. . . between him and his environment" (Frankel & Barrett. 1971. p. 95). ‘§§311n9_pg51;193--For the purposes of this study. defined in terms of 12 1. .Seaihfllfiinnge--the distance of the seat. in feet. from the screen's central focus in front of a straight-row classroom arrangement. 2. §§a1_angle_degnee--The seat position at an angle degree to the left or right side in a horizontal plane from the screenks central focus in front of a straight-row classroom arrangement; "the area immediately surrounding the individual in which the majority of his interactions with others take place" and "the area around an individual in which his own interactions occur" (Little. 1965. pp. 237. 245). ,Seatjng_pnejengnge--The seating position preferred by a student. in terms of distance and angle from the screen's central focus in front of a straight-row classroom arrangement. I115na1_discriminajjgn_1eaznlng.(VDL)--For purposes of this study. the same as perceived information; that is. a viewer's experi- ence of meaningful visual information. which imposes a qualitative approach on the viewer. 115u11_£1e1g--That area of space a person can see with head and eyes held stationary (Goldstein. 1975). W The background. problem. and purposes of this study were identified in Chapter I. ‘The importance of the study was explained and the research questions and hypotheses stated. Definitions of key terms were provided. as well. 13 Chapter II contains a discussion of related literature and research pertinent to this experimental studm.lhe methods and proce- dures used in conducting the investigation are explained in Chapter III. In Chapter IV. the results of the statistical analysis of data collected in the research are discussed. Conclusions of the study and recommendations for further research are included in Chapter V. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE Experimental research on motion pictures as instructional media in a classroom setting began about 1915. Then. one of the pioneers in the experimentation phase. Weber. investigated the "values of the motion picture... . in the development of informational learning" in the classroom. Freeman. another pioneer. investigated the "modes of presentation of motion pictures with other visual and nonvisual methods of instruction" (Hoban. 1937. pp. 307-308). Knowlton and Tilton (1932) investigated the "use of films in relation to size of the instructional group.... . Average-sized class groups were shown historical photoplays in the classroom in addition to the regular verbal instruction. and groups over two hundred pupils were shown the same films in the school auditorium" (in Hoban. 1937. p. 356). The findings of this study demonstrated that pupils in a classroom setting performed better on a factual test over an instructional film than did pupils who were shown the film in a school auditorium. In the researchers' opinion. the difference in performance was due "not to the differences in physics involved. but to the differ- ences in pupil attitude and activity which differentiate classroom and auditorium periods" (Knowlton & Tilton. 1932. p. 670). 14 15 In commenting on the results of Knowlton and Tilton's study. Hoban (1937) hypothesized that the difference in student achievement occurred because the school auditorium was "used for assemblies. entertainments. . . . and as such produces a different 'mental set' in the pupils than does the classroom. which is the normal situation for instruction" (p. 356). Thus. assuming that a classroom environment affects students' performance and attitude toward the educational activities carried out in class. including the showing of instructional films. educational technologists should consider the importance of planning and building classrooms to be used by both instructors and students. Educators. media specialists. and architects. among others. have developed programs. plans. and recommendations for using multimedia rooms for teaching. Designers must consider: How well can students see? How well can they hear? Are students located appropriately with respect to the images to be viewed? Are students comfortable? (Haviland. 1970). During World War II. the United States Army and Navy developed. produced. distributed. and used an unprecedented variety and volume»of multisensory aids to train millions of personnel in different technical skills. These aids were also used to build up "their morale under the dire stress of war by touching both their emotions and their understandingsfl Manuals and guidelines were prepared. describing "the needs served by specific aids when and_gn1y_when good utilization techniques" were followed. Instructors were urged "to maintain the 16 best possible classroom conditions." such as "proper ventilation [and] seating of students" (Miles 8. Spain. 1947. pp. v. 59). Thus. instructors should consider the principles and rules for optimal film projection in the classroom setting. Buchanan (1951) suggested a number of factors affecting the use of 16 mnIfilnu Of these factors. the following are applicable to the present study: . . . the size of the hall or classroom. and particularly the length of it in relation to the probable distance between projector and screen. . . . the size of the screen in relation to the size of the room . . . . for its dimensions govern the focal length of the projector lens required; . . . the screen . . . placed at a convenient height to allow people in the middle and back row to obtain a comfortable view without needing to peer round the heads of those in front. (pp. 183. 186) Buchanan also considered students' seating location as an important element in providing favorable conditions for projecting an instructional film in the classroom. He recommended that no one should sit on the extreme right or left of a screen for. from these positions. the pictures appear distorted. Also if space permits. it is wise to keep the front row a reasonable distance from the screen. say two or three times its length. for being too near also creates distortion. and is an uncomfortable viewing position. (p. 192) Cohen (1970) suggested certain practices that would help instructors reach their educational goals by using films in the class- room. For instance. he said there is a right time and place to show an instructional film. The place for screening visual material is more important than the ti me of showing because students' seating comfort has a greater effect on their written and/or verbal responses. particu- larly for feature films lasting longer than a 50-minute class period. 17 With the development of portable equipment (exy. slides and motion-picture projectors). the classroom has become the central place for screening visual material. Thus. having certain technical knowl- edge. like the type of screen surface. helps the instructor plan stu- dents' seating location in the classroom. For example. For persons seated not more than 22 degrees from the center of the screen. beaded screens give a brighter image than a matte. or smooth white. screen. For this reason. the matte screen is recom- mended for classrooms that are approximately square. since the image can be seen clearly and without distortion from all parts of the seating area. (Cohen. 1970. p. 182) In addition. the classroom should be arranged so that every student is able to see and hear clearly without strain or distortion when exposed to an instructional motion picture (Erickson. 1965; Dale. 1969; Wittich & Schuller. 1973). Erickson (1965) recommended that instructors use audio-visual materials to accomplish the main goals of education and to achieve teaching-learning objectives. In other words. instructional resources used under the appropriate physical conditions facilitate the studentfis learning and classroom performance. According to Erickson. the physical-control principle states that details relating to physical facilities and conditions for using audiovisual materials should be handled or arranged by the teacher in a manner that safeguards material and equipment and provides for economy of time and optimum learner attention. (p. 110) Teachers must ensure the appropriate placement of projectors. projection. and pupils. One rule of thumb that it is important and easy for instructors to follow is to "avoid seating pupils closer to 18 the screen than two picture widths and no farther away than six picture widths" (Erickson. 1965. p. 114). According to Gausewitz (1964): Improper applications of audio-visual equipment in large groups communication and instruction result more from a lack of an understanding of the limitations of the equipment than from any other source. . . . Television and film showings have entirely different screen viewing characteristics. . . . A TV screen usually has a brightness on the order of 100 lumens per square foot. while a motion picture screen is of the order of 10 lumens per square foot. 'Thus the film projection requires a darkened room while the TV screen does not. (pp. 4. 7) Using the principles of design. Gausewitz developed a graphic process to solve such problems as those related to planning a classroom arrangement for projecting media (films and televisionh Knowing the characteristics of a particular projecting medium. an educational technologist can calculate the useful seating area and side-viewing angle in a horizontal plane from the screen's central focus for that medium. The elements involved in this process are "room dimensions. occupancies and occupied areas to screen. screen brightness. projector distances. types of screen. characteristics of gain and the relations of lamp lumens to screen width." Gausewitz also suggested that: the practical limit for the closeness at which one can comfortably review the film (measured in screen widths) is determined . . . by the amount of eye scanning the viewer must do to comfortably enjoy and perceive the field of the film. (p. 4) Wheeler (1966) stated that the classroom should have a flexible seating arrangement according to "the optimum viewing angle of the screen surface" (beaded. 60 degrees; matte. 90 degrees; lenticular. 100 degrees) (p. 11). Eastman Kodak (Kodak Projection Calculator. 19 nJL) also recommends seating the viewer according to the screen surface. given the following viewing areas: beaded. 50 degrees; matte. 60 degrees; and lenticular. 90 degrees. Kodak recommends that the instructor "not seat [students] closer to the screen than two times (2H) nor farther than eight times (8H) the height of the projected image unless the quality or size of the visual dictates otherwise." According to Hayman (1963). results of research on the use of instructional films to train personnel in the United States armed forces suggested that."viewer location makes a difference where visual aspects of the presentation are important" (p. 27). Gibson's findings on Air Force trainees indicated that "only if extreme demands were made on visual acuity did position relative to the screen affect learning. and even then a viewing angle up to 45 degrees was satisfactory" (in Hayman. 1963. p. 27). Ash and Jaspen demonstrated that their U.S. Navy subjects "performed better with a viewing angle of 30 degrees or less and a distance from the screen not greater than 12 screen widths" in assembling part of an anti-aircraft gun. a task that demanded visual acuity. In a study of instructional television. Hayman (1963) investi- gated the relationship of subjects' distance and viewing angle from the television's central focus. using a televised Spanish course for fourth-grade pupils. The subjects were randomly selected from all fourth graders in the Denver. Colorado. schools. The 24 classrooms selected were used without any modifications. That is. the pupils' seating locations were already arranged in an area approximately 24 20 feet by 18 feet. at a 40-degree angle from each side of the center of the television screen. either at the front center or side center of the room. Hayman implied that subjects personally selected their seating locations; he noted that "teachers were asked to fill in the seating chart at the beginning of the first TV lesson and to make sure that pupils occupied the same seats for subsequent lessons" (pp. 29-30). Hayman found that when visual perception (in this case. learn- ing to pronounce Spanish words) was required of the subjects. they "had to see clearly and accurately the lip and tongue movements of the instructor" (p. 29). Therefore. seating location was an important factor in the learning process. Hayman found that fourth-grade pupils seated in the center and rear of the viewing area performed better on the speaking test (pronouncing Spanish words) than did pupils seated on the side of the room. He concluded. "Viewer location relative to the TV screen is definitely a factor in learning from instructional tele- vision" (p. 31). Another study on instructional television was conducted by Westley and Severin (1965). who investigated the relationship between subjects' seating distance from a television set and their achievement on a televised mathematics course. The sample comprised nine classes of ninth-grade pupils in Madison. Wisconsin. Because the "natural setting" used for this study included many classrooms of different sizes and shapes. teachers were asked to measure the distance between pupils' seating location and the television set. 21 Although the authors investigated the relationship between seating distance from a television set and a number of variables. their main concern was the relationship between seating distance and student achievement. Study findings indicated that "the farther the student sat from the [television] set. the greater was his achievement" (p. 272). In their conclusions. Westley and Severin stated. Hayman regrets that he was unable to test the limits of this effect since all of his subjects sat within 24 feet of the set. We cannot shed any light on this point of diminishing returns either. All we know is that in classrooms of normal size and with no student more than 50 feet from the set. distance and achievement appear to be positively related. (p. 274) The findings of Westley and Severin's research are questionable because of the lack of important information such as television-screen width. viewing angle. and seating area (the classroom teacher measured the distance between seat and television set in five lO-foot inter- vals). as well as the uncontrolled seating arrangement in the class- rooms. The researchers' lack of control over the seating arrangement is understandable. but not their failure to consider the other informa- tion. Also. in terms of their findings. one may ask. How far was "farther"? Were the students' seating locations within the limits recommended by Gausewitz (1964). that is. 4W minimum and 16 maximum for a television projection? A third study on instructional television was carried out by Mayers (1967). who termed the relationship between students' viewing angle from the central focus of the screen and learning or performance the "'cone effect' because the area within the presumably 'optimal' 22 angle of view is in the shape of a cone with the apex placed at the center of the screen" (p. 170). Mayers investigated the relationship between students' viewing angle from the television screen's center and responsiveness under certain conditions (teachers acting as role models and observers) in a televised Spanish course. Fifth-grade public school classrooms were used without any modification. 'The classroom seating areas. approxi- mately 24 feet x 24 feet. were arranged in a precise straight-row arrangement. ‘The television screens measured 21 inches diagonally and were placed in the center of the rooms. The straight-row classroom arrangement was designed in such a way as to permit "unequivocal iden— tification of pupils inside a cone of 60 degrees wide (i.e.. viewing from an angle of 30 degrees or less) and those outside the cone" (p. 172). Mayers found that when the teacher acted as a role model for the class. that is. responded to the television instructor. "pupils inside the cone-shaped area directly in front of the screen performed significantly better than those outside that area" Ox 176L The same finding did not hold true for classes in which the teacher's role was that of observer. Thus. Mayers's findings supported the hypothesis that "social psychological factors account for part or all of the relationship under certain conditions" (p. 178). That is. the active presence of the teacher during television or motion picture instruction can enhance learning by increasing students' responsiveness. 23 McVey (1970) synthesized research findings from different areas (ext. audiovisual technology and ophthalmology) "into a working state- ment concerning the nature of viewer-display relationships as they apply principally to television" (p. 278). McVey recommended that. for optimal viewing. accuracy. and comfort. seats should be located in the space he called "audience volume." which has an ellipsoidal shape and its configuration is determined by . . . the physical properties of the TV image. its size. shape and brightness. and human factors such as visual acuity. image distor- tion resulting from angular viewing. eye fixation patterns. and visual comfbrt. (p. 278) The minimum viewing location. when interpreted in terms of image widths. was found to be two times the image width (2W) and represents the minimum viewing distance for most displays including high-resolution television and film. This distance . . . cannot be recommended as a suitable minimum viewing distance for the typical classroom monitor with its generally poor image resolution for it is found that at this dis- tance the image is seen more as a crude scanning line than as a discrete picture. (p. 279) Identification of the optimum viewing distance was based on the "reflexive search pattern of the eyeJ' That is. "a closer viewer- distance results in the concentration of eye fixations at the center" of the screen. whereas greater distance forces "concentration of eye fixations on the outside borders" (p. 280). Thus. by providing a proper seating arrangement in relation to the television set. instructors and educational technologists can avoid and/or reduce students'Ivisual fatigue. which is an important element to consider in a televised instructional course. McVey concluded. 24 The establishment of any set of viewer-display recommendations is the product of a number of "trade-offs" or compromises. within established tolerable viewing limitations.. . . It will be up to the individual user to set his own priorities. (p. 289) Allen (1955) reviewed and summarized seven studies that investigated the effects of class preparation for the showing of an instructional film on students' learning. The preparatory and/or introductory activities used in these studies were descriptions of the content of the film. . . . stress upon the importance of learning the material. .... lists of difficult words to be encountered in the film. . . . [and] announcement that a test will be given after the film showing. (p. 183) Because its approach to preparatory activities for showing an instructional film was similar to that of the present study. in which cues/no cues were given to the students before showing an instructional film. the Allison and Ash study was selected for further discussion from among the seven studies reviewed by Allen. Allison and Ash investigated how well 480 college students enrolled in an introductory psychology course could learn from films under the following condi- tions: instructions designed to decrease motivation to learn by lowering their anxiety about learning from the film; . . . instructions designed to have a neutral effect; and . . . motivational instructions designed to increase anxiety about learning. (p. 186) The investigators found that increasing the amount of anxiety resulted in significantly more learning. They concluded. "Anxiety produced by the use of suitably worded instructions can have a beneficial effect on the learning of complex materials from films" (in A118": 1955: p. 186). 25 Based on his analysis of research concerning the effects of class preparation for showing an instructional film on students' learning. Allen concluded. "Teacher introductions and class preparation for film showings result in significantly more factual material learned than merely showing the film without an introduction" (p. 186). This chapter contained a review of literature and research with emphases on controlling of students' seating in the classroom for viewing an instructional film versus television. Despite a careful search of the available writings. the only studies located were concerned with instructional television rather than filnn However. the similarity between film and instructional television justified the inclusion of such research in this review. Among many important issues discussed concerning the projection of instructional materials in the classroom were rules guiding seating distance from the screen. based on screen width as a unit of measure- ment. Another factor to consider when projecting visual material is the limitations of the projecting equipment (94%: television and film showing have different screen-viewing and viewing-angle characteris- tics). As McVey concluded. "It will be up to an individual user to set his own priorities" when designing and planning for the projection of instructional media in the classroom setting. Based on the findings of studies reviewed in this chapter. it would appear that students' seating-position distance and angle from the screen's central focus should not be ignored. In addition. findings of the reviewed research demonstrated that class preparation 26 for film showings has a significant positive effect on students' learning. The methods and procedures used to carry out this experimental study are explained in Chapter III. CHAPTER III METHODS AND PROCEDURES Intmdusflon This experimental study was conducted to investigate the effects of seating position on college students' performance in per- ceiving information. in terms of visual-discrimination learning and listening comprehension (VDL/LC). when viewing an instructional film in the classroom. 'The following key points were investigated: 1. students' seating distance from the screen's central focus (SCF) in front of the classroom; 2. students' seating angle. to the left or to the right side from SCF in a horizontal plane in front of the classroom; 3. the possible effects of cues. given beings showing the instructional film. on students' performance in perceiving information (VDL/LC) frmm their assigned seating position in the environmental setting; and 4. the effects of students' seating position on their perceived information (VDL/LC). Identification of these factors should help those dealing with instructional films. or other front-of-room visually projected materials. to improve the optimal viewing area in a common classroom situation. The optimal viewing area is related to: 27 28 l. the screen's surface (material) and width. which are used as indicators for calculating the seating distance from SCF (Erickson. 1965; Heinich et a1.. 1982; Kodak Projection Calculator. n.d.); and 2. the seats' distance at an angle from SCF. in a horizontal plane of a straight-row classroom arrangement. The methods and procedures used in carrying out this study are explained in the following sections: Experimental Methodology. Pilot Study. Experimental Group. the Subjects. Experimental Settings. Instrumentation. and Statistical Treaiment of the Data. Wu The University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects at Michigan State University granted the researcher permission to use a student sample in this experimental study (Appendix E). The pilot and experimental groups comprised undergraduate and graduate students enrol led in different colleges at Michigan State. Both instruments used in the experimental study were administered to the subjects in seal ed envelopes that were numbered a(warding to the seat numbers in straight-row classroom settings. The Inventory Test was given to the subjects before and the Performance Test after the showing of an instructional film. Seat numbers were randomly assigned (Figure 4) according to 1. the seats' distance from SCF. measured in screen widths to the left or right side of the SCF in front of the room; and 2. the seats' angle. measured in degrees to the left or right Side of the SCF in a horizontal plane in front of the room. 29 70° 80° 80° 70° 4 9 .oo 60° IE ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ T ----- ‘~~“‘\@. Iflk‘ifiiflflm “TIMIM mnemonic? so. Ell3vll -- - new 50° -. «0° 1..» 1 a); on, o S . ' "(Ia 30° 30 1 E} wig: ail 30° 20° 2:]- an} Ba... - nil-u :- 7“- sum Reyna: {.0th 'e “'1 not. Imtub 5 ‘05 to. “and” M” uuuuu but Figure h.--Diagram illustrating the seats randomly assigned in Experimental Setting One. 30 The treatment (given cues/given no cues) was designed so that 1. students in seats with even numbers (2. 4. .... 130) were assigned to Treatment One: Given Cues; and 2. students in seats with odd numbers (1. 3. .... l29) were assigned to Treatment Two: Given No Cues. All of the subjects were randomly assigned to seats in two experimental settings. as discussed in the following pages. W W l. Seat numbers were randomly assigned in a systematic numerical order from 001 to 100 (Appendix A. Table A-l). 2. Numbered envelopes containing the two instruments were organized according to the systematic numerical order shown in Table A-l. 3. Before entering the room. the subjects were given the envelope containing both instruments and a pencil. They were shown the seating-location map at the entrance to the room. as depicted in Figure 4. The number of each seat was written in blue marker on a 3" x 5" white card placed on the seat. Subjects participated in the experiment on a voluntary basis. Therefore. it was difficult to anticipate the number and nature of students who would participate. 31 W m In Setting Two. the experiment was conducted during a Family Child Ecology class neriod and between two other classes scheduled to use the same room. This experimental group comprised l24 students from the College of Nursing at Michigan State. All of the subjects were randomly assigned to seats as follows: 1. Each seat number was written on a 2" x 3" piece of white paper. which was folded twice and placed in a plastic bag. ‘The subjects picked a seat number before entering the room. 2. The number of each seat in the room was written in blue marker on an 8-1/2" x ll" piece of white paper placed on the seat. as shown in Figure 5. 3. A numbered envelope containing the test instruments was placed on the correspondingly numbered seat. Once the subjects were seated. the researcher turned on a tape- recorder. which was on a table at the front of the room. During the musical "overture." the researcher checked to see that all of the numbered envelopes matched the seat numbers. The experimental activi- ties were timed and the pace determined by the musical background. The prerecorded verbal instructions (Appendix B. Script B-l) and musical background were designed to hold constant the time and pace of each part of the study. when replicated in the pilot and experimental groups. 32 80° 80° II- I nah-m [9'3 m_m|_ a FE F ”FF. Elf? =w7F... F77 i//F _ IIIIWI HIIIIII \\/\/Io.m a.--v.-I_jm FEW. =m FF... FFm FF ____m =3: .‘IW IEIIIIIIIII? z o o 0 0 6 5 m EEEIJDEVZ WJI. 40 30° W “MW” F Wu‘w. q H - screen width 1 I luv u "OJ-cm! 'a' D .J. '1' to '11‘ ' wmmww Figure 5.--Diagram illustrating seat-number distribution in Experimental Setting Two. 33 W W A piiot study was carried out to test and vaiidate the Inventory Test and the Performance Test, the two instruments designed to coiiect the necessary data for this research. The piiot-study group comprised a sma11 number of subjects (undergraduate and graduate stu- dents) drawn from the experimentai popuiation. These subjects were enroiied in various coiieges at Michigan State during Spring Term 1984. Two experimentai sessions composed of four subjects and 14 subjects. respectiveiy. were carried out on May 30 and May 31. 1984. in Experimentai Setting Onet Each test was compieted in two hours. Based on the subjects' attitudes toward the test and findings on both instru- ments, the researcher revised the tests as foiiows: ,Ing_1nyentgny_lest (used aiso as pretest) i. The reading time for directions was reduced from three minutes to one minute. 2. The period for compieting the test was reduced from 30 to 15 minutes. 3. Instructions were added on page 1 concerning the time necessary to complete the test. .Ing_E§ngLmang§_I§st (used aiso as posttest) i. The reading time for directions was reduced from five minutes to three minutes. 2. The period for compieting the test was divided into 15 minutes for Part I and 20 minutes for Part II of the test. This change 34 was necessary because some of the subjects forgot to compiete Part II of this test. and it was necessary to reduce the totai time of the experiment to guarantee student avaiiabiiity. 3. The directions were revised. For exampie. written instruc- tions were added on page 8 to alert the students to wait for pre- recorded instructions before starting Part II of the test. 4. Items in Part II were revised and the ianguage ciarified. 5. An item was added on eva‘l uation of the seat's physica'l position in reiating to the SCF. 6. The answer sheet was eiiminated. and subjects were asked to write their responses in the test bookiet. WW5 The content of the prerecorded instructions was revised. and musicai background was used for timing and pacing each part of the experiment. (See Appendix B. Script B-i.) W A11 of the procedures carried out in Experimentai Setting One were used as a piiot study to retest and vaiidate the revised instru- ments and prerecorded instructions. ‘The piiot—study group comprised undergraduate and graduate students enroiied at Michigan State during Summer and Fa'l‘l Terms 1984. The pi'lot-study participants were divided into two groups. henceforth identified as groups A and B. The piiot study was repiicated four times to increase the number of subjects. .As shown in Tabie i. the sampie sizes for groups A 35 and B were sma11 (A =14. B = 34). The two Group B sections (BI and 52) were tested in different hours. Tab1e 1.--Pi1ot-study scheduie distribution. Variab1e Group A Group B Term Summer 1984 Summer 1984 Fa11 1984 Subgroup A] B] 82 Date Ju1y 3 & 24 Ju1y 2 October 1 Hour 10:20-11:50 a.m. 10:20-11:50 a.m. 8:00-9:30 p.m. Samp1e size 8 + 6 21 13 Tota1 N 14 34 Room Experimenta1 Setting One Duration One hour and 30 minutes mm The sampie comprised 124 undergraduate students from the Co11ege of Nursing at Michigan State University. A11 of them were enro11ed in a Fami1y Chi1d Ecoiogy course during Fa11 Term 1984. ‘This experimenta1 session was he1d on October 2. 1984. in Experimenta1 Setting Two. Ih£_§uhlfisls Descriptions of the subjects are based on data co11ected through the Inventory Test (Appendix C. Instrument C—1). administered before showing the fi1m. ‘The Inventory Test data provided an overa11 36 description of the piiot study (groups A and B) and of the samp1e in terms of (1) demographic data. (2) physica1 condition. (3) co11ege educationai 1eve1. and (4) background in human bio1ogy. Information on specific subgroups in the pi1ot study can be found in Tab1e A-2 in Appendix A. W The overa11 demographic data on both the pi1ot and experimenta1 study groups are shown in Tab1e 2. Tab1e 2.--Demographic data on subjects in pi1ot and experimenta1 study groups. Pi1ot Study Samp1e Group A Group B Samp1e size 14 34 124 Age Range 19-43 25-49 18-43 Mean 25.36 33.50 21.32 Sex Fema1e 11 14 122 Ma1e 3 20 2 Ethnic Group Caucasian 13 17 108 B1ack O 1 7 Spanish 0 9 4 Indian (American) 1 O 0 Orienta1 0 3 4 Other (Midd1e Eastern) 0 4 O No information 0 0 1 37 The heterogeneity of the pi1otvstudy groups is demonstrated by the characteristics of the subjects in the experiment. 0f the 34 subjects in Group B. there were 25 foreign students. whose first 1anguage was other than Eng1ish. The samp1e group was characterized by its homogeneity. With few exceptions. the group comprised fema1e Caucasians whose ages ranged from 18 to 43. with a mean age of 21.32 years. besjcaJFQQndmgn The overa11 physica1-condition data on subjects in both the pi1ot study and samp1e groups are shown in Tab1e 3. Tab1e 3.--Physica1 condition of subjects in piiot study and samp1e groups. Pi1ot Study Group Variabie Samp1e A B Samp1e size 34 124 Vision Norma1 5 18 68 Corrected 9 16 56 Hearing Norma1 13 34 124 Corrected 1 0 0 Writing Left-handed 0 3 13 Right-handed 14 31 111 38 The number of subjects with corrected vision in re1ation to the number of subjects in the groups was higher in group A.(9 subjects) than in the samp1e (56 subjects). On the other hand. the numbers of 1eft-handed subjects in the samp1e and group B were 10w (3 and 13. respective1y). On1y one person had corrected hearing; the rest reported norma1 hearing capabi1ities. W The subjects in both the piiot study and samp1e groups were enro11ed at Michigan State for Summem or Fa11 Term 1984. as shown in Tab1e 4. The groups A and the samp1e were composed so1e1y of under- graduate students. whereas group B inciuded 9 master's and 17 doctora1 degree candidates. Tab1e 4.--Co11ege educationa1 1eve1 of study participants. Pi1ot Study Group Variab1e Samp1e A B Samp1e size 14 34 124 Sophomore 0 0 57 Junior 1 O 50 Senior 11 2 12 MS/MA candidate 0 9 0 Ph.D. candidate 0 17 0 No information 2 6 5 W The subjects' background in human bio1ogy. in terms of courses taken and know1edge of terms. is shown in Tab1e 5. Background in human 39 bio1ogy was used as the pretest in this experiment to measure the subjects' know1edge of human bio1ogy before they viewed the instruc- tiona1 fi1m. Tab1e 5.--Subjects' background in human bio1ogy. Pi1ot Study Group Variab1e A B Samp1e N % N % N Z Samp1e size 14 100.00 34 100.00 124 100.00 Number of courses in HB Didn't take any course 7 50.00 19 55.90 6 4.84 One course 2 14.29 4 11.76 31 25.00 Two courses 3 21.42 4 11.76 31 25.00 Three courses 2 14.29 3 8.82 17 13.70 Four or more courses 0 0.00 4 11.76 38 30.65 No information 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.81 Know1edge of HB terms 1 of correct responses possib1e per subject 11 11 11 Tota1 I of correct responses possib1e 154 100.00 374 100.00 1.364 100.00 (N = 11) Correct responses 72 46.75 175 46.79 1.033 75.73 Incorrect responses 82 53.25 144 38.50 331 24.27 Missing a11 resp. 0 0.00 55 14.71 0 0.00 Mean score correct responses 5.14 5.14 8.3 Except for seven subjects in group A. a11 of the study partici- pants had taken at 1east one course in human bio1ogy. The figures demonstrate a ba1anced situation for group A; that is. seven subjects had not taken any course in human bio1ogy. In group B. 15 subjects had 40 taken one to more than four courses. whi1e in the samp1e group. 38 subjects had taken four or more courses in this fie1d. In terms of knowing some human bioiogy terms. in re1ation to the samp1e sizes (see Tab1e 5). group A had the highest number of incorrect responses (53.25%). and the samp1e group had the highest number of correct responses (75.73%). In other words. group A had 82 incorrect responses out of 154 tota1 possib1e correct responses; the samp1e group had 1.033 correct responses out of a tota1 of 1.364 possib1e correct responses. The data a1so demonstrated that 55 responses were missing. a11 in group B. 'That is. five subjects (14.71%) did not respond to the questions. Wilma The experimenta1 study was designed to be carried out in a c1assroom designated Experimenta1 Setting One. During Summer Term 1984. it was possib1e to have a11 of the study groups in this setting at the same time (10:20-11:50 a.m.). When the experimenta1 study was rep1icated in Fa11 1984. Experimenta1 Setting One was avai1ab1e on1y in the evening. 'Therefore. one of the two experimenta1 sessions was carried out from 8:00-9:30 p.m. The other took p1ace from 10:20-11:50 a.m. in a c1assroom designated Experimenta1 Setting Two. Each of the c1assroom settings used in this experimenta1 study is described in the fo1iowing sections. 41 Exaecimenialieiflngfine The c1assroom designated Experimenta1 Setting One was about 40 feet by 42 feet. The two windows. about 10 feet wide by 8 feet high. were 1ocated on the right side of the room and had cioth curtains used to darken the c1assroom. 'Two exit doors (about 6 feet wide) were 1ocated on the 1eft side of the room. A cei1ing fan was 1ocated between each of the 12 pairs of 1ights. making a tota1 of six fans. The room's seating capacity. in a straight-row arrangement. was 162 seats. which were p1aced in nine rows of 18 seats each. divided by a center ais1e (i.e.. nine seats on each side of the ais1e). For this study. the room was reorganized by using on1y 100 seats p1aced in a straight-row spatia1 arrangement. as shown in Figure 6. Two pieces of cardboard were prepared for use as measuring units for p1acing each seat in a row and co1umn. The seats' row distance (16 inches) was determined by p1acing one cardboard on the floor between the front 1695 of si de-by-side seats. The seats' co1umn distance (19 inches) was determined by p1acing the second cardboard on the f1oor between a front 1eg of the seat in the back row and a back 169 of the seat in the front row. as shown in Figure 7. The setting inc1uded nine rows. m through u. and 12 coiumns. a through 1. Row u at the rear of the room had on1y four seats. 1ocated in co1umns a. b. k. and 1. The seats in co1umn a. on the right side of the room. were p1aced against the wa11. by the windows. The seats in co1umn 1. by the exit doors on the 1eft side of the room. were p1aced 30 inches from the wa11. 42 9 II ° II“ I W l I O IIII=I3IIIIII I I I I I I I I .e ‘1 I I I m' I::=I= I I :=..": I I I I I I I l 9' 0 e b c d e t g h 1 J l l III :0 as fin)" acne. 1" I .05 a m. 50' - Screen Contra focu- l - Ilene Projector 81.5 I Screen Left Side "e" to '1’ I colt-m - Screen Rum Side ‘3' to 'u" 0 re- 0 MIMIIOIIIAJ plate W It.” to the tone pajeclu Figure 6.--Straight-row c1assroom spatial arrangement in Experimental Setting One. 43 columns TOWS Figure 7.--Measuring distance between row and coiumn of seats. To determine the center aisie in front of the screen's centra‘l focus (SCF). a 36-inch piece of cardboard was p1aced between the 1egs of seats in coiumns f and g. The seats in the first row (row m) were p1aced about seven feet from the front waii and about five feet from the fixed screen in front of the room. The matte-white (8 feet square) screen was pu'lied down from a roiier device fixed. 29 inches from the wa11. in the ceiiing in front of the room. The SCF was not Tocated at the center point of the front wall; rather. it was about 19 feet from the ieft side wa11 and about 21 feet from the right side wa11. as shown in Figure 6. The movie projector. which had a projection zoom Tens. was placed at the rear of the room. The projection Tens was perpendicu- ‘lariy a'Iigned to the SCF (i.e.. at a 90-degree angie to the screen) in front of the room. 44 BMW The room used for Experimenta1 Setting Two was 37 feet by 55 feet. There were no windows in this room. and both exit doors were 1ocated at the rear of the room. The room's seating capacity. in a straight-row arrangement. was 154 seats. p1aced in six co1umns of 15 seats each and four co1umns of 16 seats. For this experiment. 24 seats were removed from the rear of the room. 1eaving a tota1 of 30 seats in the room. p1aced in 10 co1umns (a through j) and 13 rows (01 through 13). The distance between rows was about 20 inches. The seats in the first row were measured with a sca1e. and other seats were arranged after them. About four inches were maintained between seats in each co1umn. as shown in Figure 8. The seats in co1umn a were p1aced against the wa11 on the right side of the room. The arrangement had no center ais1e because this room had a projection booth. as we11 as cei1ing 1oud-speakers. 'Two screens were affixed to the cei1ing in front of the room. with a mechanica1 device for 1owering and raising them. These screens were not used because they were out of centra1-c1assroom vision. A portab1e matte-white screen (eight feet square) was p1aced about five feet from the front wa11. in the center of the room. The bottom of the screen was pu11ed up about four feet above f1oor 1eve1; its top was about 11 feet above f1oor 1eve1. The movie projector. which had a projection zoom 1ens. was first tested from the projection booth. When the projection system was being tested. it presented a feedback effect that was audib1e in the 45 us 13 119 no u “'1 10 122 123 o m .— 125 6 _EEEEE- 3333 EEEEE-W m :1: _ KEIEEEEEH- mm 8 I Mic [NJ-cw 'e" to 'J“ I ooh-m 'I" I0 'I'J‘ I rem tree 80' to on code reactor I new.“ Illa“ IMO II c When“! plane III 0 “creel: he". ”do w. 80‘ I Screen centre) Vect- Ii E: m if? X, a m “an“. 8- W W; Jim: ream-w W, m. BEN-s---” m 71E: f. E _EEEEE_LEE n. 5E: =M=LV=WI m Ema“... 51mm m_mmm$w$:wwmmm.m EEEEEEEEEEEEE.L m m m m Setting Two. Scale 1" I .050- Figure 8.--Diagram of assigned seats in Experimental 46 c1assroom. Thus. the projection booth was not used. and the movie projector was p1aced at the rear of the room on a sma11 tabTe. The projection Tens was a1igned perpendicu1ar1y to the SCF (iaa. at a 90- degree angie to the screen) in a horizontai p1ane. in front of the I‘OOIII . lnstmmentatim The primary purpose of this study was to determine the effects of co11ege students' seating position when viewing an instructiona1 fi1m in a straight-row c1assroom arrangement on their performance in perceiving information. 'Two data-co11ection instruments were designed to co11ect specific information pertinent to the research. The instru- ments (the Inventory Test and the Performance Test) were ana1yzed and eva1uated in terms of va1idity by a Michigan State University professor who is know1edgeab1e about the design of eva1uation instruments. 'These instruments were tested as part of the pi1ot studies described ear1ier in this chapter. Each instrument. individua11y sea1ed. was p1aced in an enveiope sea1ed with b1ue tape. Then. each enve1ope was given a number that corresponded with a seat number'in the c1assroom. Test instruments were distributed to the subjects as exp1ained in the Experimenta1 Methodo1ogy section. W The Inventory Test was printed on co1ored paper and was sea1ed with ye11ow tape. This instrument.(Appendix C) was designed to e1icit 47 certain demographic data for the experiment and was a1so used as a pretest to measure students' know1edge of human-bio1ogy concepts. The subjects were required to compiete the Inventory Test before the instructiona1 fi1m was shown. In essence. the Inventory Test e1icited four types of data: demographic data. physica1 condition. co11ege educationa1 ieve1. and background in human bioiogy. W. Demographic data were co11ected to provide information on subjects' persona1 characteristics that might have affected their performance on the posttest. The subjects' ethnic group. interpreted in terms of their nationa1ity. was an important factor that cou1d affect their perception. For examp1e. the samp1e inc1uded 25 foreign students whose first 1anguage was other than EngTish. It was assumed that these subjects wou1d have some probiem perceiving the ora1 narration in the fi1m because the rate was rapid. demanding high concentration and aura1 acuity. ‘Enyslga1_cgnd1119n. 'The experiment was designed to be conducted in an ordinary c1assroom situation. Thus. questions on subjects! physica1 condition were intended to provide information on participants! physica1 condition and possib1e effects on their performance in perceiving information from the instructiona1 fiim. The variab1es were (1)‘vision (norma1 or corrected). (2) hearing (norma1 or corrected). and (3) writing (1eft/right-handed or ambidextrous). The subjects' perception of information (VDL/LC) was assumed to be affected by their seat-position distance and ang1e from the SCF. 48 .QQllfiggzfinusnlignnl_lexel. Information on subjects! coi1ege educationa1 1eve1 was sought because of its possib1e effect on their posttest performance after viewing the instructiona1 fi1m. The sub- jects! perception of information (VDL/LC) was assumed to be affected by their co11ege educationa1 1eve1. yBggkgngund_1n_numan_biglggy. Information on the subjects' background in human bio1ogy was sought because the instructiona1 fi1m they were shown concerned human musc1es. The students' experience in human bio1ogy was a re1evant factor. Hence. it was assumed that the treatment (given cues/given no cues) might have an effect on their performance on the posttest. The human-bio1ogy variab1es were as foi1ows: (1) number of courses taken in human bio1ogy and (2) know1- edge of se1ected human-bio1ogy terms. WW .tlgnal_£11m. Information was sought on the subjects! persona1 seating preferences for viewing an instructiona1 fi1m in the c1assroom and the possib1e effects of the random1y assigned seating on subjects' posttest performance. (See Appendix A. Tab1e A-4J The statements of reasons designed for this experiment were based on studies of students' seat 1ocation in the c1assroom and on other re1ated research (Appendix D). W The Performance Test was printed on white paper and sea1ed with red tape. This instrument was designed to e1icit information concern- ing treatment (given cues/given no cues) effects on subjects' perform- ance in perceiving information (VDL/LC). Subjects compieted this test 49 after viewing the instructiona1 fiTm from their random1y assigned seats in a straight-row c1assroom arrangement (Appendix CL The variab1es inc1uded in the Performance Test were as fo11ows: (1) treatment (given cues/given no cues). (2) the Performance Test (Part I: test on fi1m content; Part II: open questions). and seat 1ocation (seat distance. seat ang1e. and seat side from SCF). These variab1es are discussed in the fo11owing paragraphs. lrgnjmgnj, Data on treatment variab1es (given cues/given no cues) were designed to provide important information on subjects' previous experience with the subject matter of the instructiona1 fiim ‘Mysgle. which was to be shown to them. and the possib1e effects of such experience on their posttest performance. It was assumed that this treatment (given cues/given no cues) might affect subjects' posttest performance. The independent variab1es were (1) given cues and (2) given no cues. 1. Given cues. Subjects assigned to even-numbered seats (2. 4. 100. 130) were given cues (Treatment 1) on some of the main topics to which they shou1d pay attention when viewing the fi1m. hugging They were not permitted to take notes on the cues. Data on this variab1e were intended to provide re1evant information on sub- jects! perception of information (VDL/LC) and possib1e effects on their posttest performance. It was assumed that Treatment I (given cues) might affect the subjects' performance on the posttest. un1ike the effect experienced by subjects who were not given cues. 50 2. Given no cues. Students assigned to odd-numbered seats (1. 3. 99. 129) received Treatment II (no cues given). Thus. these subjects were given no information at a11 on the fi1m to be shown. Data on this variab1e were intended to provide information on subjects' perceived information (VDL/LC) and possib1e effects on their posttest performance. It was assumed that Treatment II (no cues given) might affect subjects! performance on the posttest. un1ike the effects experienced by subjects who were given cues. W. Performance Test items were designed to provide reievant information on subjects' perception of information (VDL/LC) and possib1e effects of seat distance and ang1e on their test performance. The subjects! perception of information (VDL/LC) was assumed to be affected by the treatment (cues given/no cues given). The independent variab1es were scores on (1) Part I--test on fi1m content and (2) Part II--open questions. 1. Part I--Test on fi1m content. ‘The mu1tip1e-choice test was designed after previewing the fi1m and reading the CRM/MCGraw-Hi11 script for the fiim. Muscle (see Appendix B. Script B-2). Data from the test on fi1m content were designed to provide data on the subjects' performance in perceiving information (VDL/LC). ‘These findings were used to answer the research questions and hypotheses posed in the study. The subjects! perception of information (VDL/LC) was assumed to be affected by the treatment (cues given/no cues given). That is. 51 students who received cues were expected to perform better on the posttest than those who did not receive such information. The dependent variab1e was then divided into visua1 discrimina- tion 1earning (VDL) and 1istening comprehension (LC). Each of the items was coded in terms of the variab1es VDL and LC; These questions were used to measure the subjects' performance in perceiving informa- tion as fo11ows: a. VDL'FVL (VDL'fOVBBI): Items 54: 56: 579 58' 6]: 69: 76: 87: and 88. b. VDL-PRPHRL (VDL periphera1): Items 44. 48. 52. 62. 63. 7D. 84' and 86e c. VDL was the combination of VDL-FVL and VDL-PRPHRL items. d. The other items were c1assified as LC. 2. Part II--Open-ended questions. The open-ended questions were constructed after the writer previewed sections of the fi1m and the script for the fi1m. Muscle. The fi1m was se1ected for its effective use of animation. graphs. and tit1ing. among other tech- niques. The ora1 fi1m narration rate was somewhat.compressed to cover up the extensive number of visua1s presented. .Animated graphics (draw- ing) and the written 1abe1s shown too rapid1y wou1d make it difficu1t for subjects to perceive them through their fovea1 and periphera1 vision from their seating position in the c1assroom. As in the mu1tip1e-choice test. data on open-ended questions were intended to provide re1evant information on subjects' performance in perceiving information (VDL/LC). The subjects' perception of infor- mation was assumed to be affected by the treabment:(cues given/no cues 52 given). Hence. being given cues possib1y wou1d have affected subjects' performance on the posttest. un1ike the effects experienced by the subjects who received no cues. 5mm Seat numbers were distributed in a straight-row c1assroom arrangement. Figure 9 represents Experimenta1 Setting Two. in sca1e (one inch = .05 cm). The independent variab1e of seat iocation was divided into (1) seat distance from SCF. (2) seat ang1e from SCF. and (3) seat ang1e side from SCF. .5ea1_fi151ance_£ngm_§§E. The distance of each seat from SCF was measured as shown in Figure 10. in which the rectang1es represent seats in the c1assroom. The center of each rectang1e (seat) was found by tracing diagona1 1ines 1inking opposite corners. as shown in Figure 1D. The distance of each seat from SCF was determined by measuring from the screen's centrai focus to the seat's center (Figure 10). The distance measured was recorded in feet. center Figure 10.--Locating the center of the rectang1e. 53 EEEEIEEEEEIII- 8.»..... (It: _ a, EEEIIIEEEE. I. II. EEEa 5 EEE . kIII- Inning“. am. 5L: 5 _. EEM km EE: EE: ES. I EEEBEEE: .3 E a. I. aflaaaaafln I, nil. m“ I: Figure 9.--Measuring distance and angle from SCF to seat's center in Experimental Setting Two. 54 §§AI_§ngl§_£LQm_§§E. Seat angTes were determined as depicted in Figure 9. The ang1e of each seat was measured by superimposing the basic horizonta1 1ine of the protractor (0-180 degrees) over the Tine representing the screenhs width in front of the room. The 9D-degree mark was p1aced over the perpendicu1ar Tine from the projecting 1ine of the movie projector. Each ang1e was read f011owing the same technique used to measure distance--that is. tracing a straight Tine from the SCF to the center of the seat. The ang1e measured was read and registered in degrees. 53g;_gng1e_§1g§_£ngm_§QE. Based on the SCF in front of the room. a seat's angTe was identified as being at the Teft or the right side of the SCF. The techniques used for measuring seat distance and ang1e from the SCF were emp1oyed to determine subjects! persona1 seating preference in Experimenta1 Setting Two but rearranged with 150 seats. and subjects! random1y assigned seats in Experimenta1 Setting One for the pi1ot studies (Figure 11). -A11 measurements were taken from the SCF to the center of each seat in both Experimenta1 Setting One and Two. 513W At the beginning of this chapter. the key points concerning students! seating position for viewing an instructiona1 fiTm in a straight-row c1assroom arrangement were presented. ‘Three hypotheses were formu1ated to guide the ana1ysis of data in this study. ‘The statistica1 method used to test each hypothesis is exp1ained after the particu1ar hypothesis is stated. 55 9 .3 3.... a. 3mg 5. 31:”, 5 a, 33 a = = :m 5% :55 :3: = E :3- 333:. =8 a, E a 3?, E. II, II z __m E __-., 33M __M __w Em. 333. 333333; =m 33E33. 025 — — 0% 010 017 EBEEEEE =8 5 E E 8 #33333: =m =m =W 3:. =. E i _.-N” 62° ----------° SL5 n or 1)) Efl 1): SE] a E3335: I E: E,- I 3E3: f __m :13. In 0° - b------- m“. Mm" m... "mm. M: “mm. m m o r . ... mumMm nusbm “new gum-mu mm” Aaxkem sliml- numb-tow n. u a L.’ o. I n .u x Figure Il.--Experimenta1 Setting Two arranged for students' persona1 seating preference for viewing an instructional film. S6 Hypothesis 1: Holding constant the student's angle of vision and other key independent variables. the farther the student is from the screen's central focus. the more information he/she will perceive. Hypothesis 1 was tested by applying the multiple-regression technique. which permitted analysis of the linear relationship between the continuous independent variable (distance) and perceived informa- tion. holding constant other key independent variables. The hypothesis was tested separately for visual discrimination learning and listening comprehension. the continuous dependent variables. Multiple-regression analysis revealed no evidence of a linear effect of distance on the outcomes. Moreover. examination of scatterplots displaying the relationship between distance and each outcome revealed no apparent nonlinear effect. Hypothesis 2: Holding constant the student's seat distance from the screen's central focus. the smaller the seat's angle on the left or the right side of the screen's central focus in a horizon- tal plane in front of the room. the less information the student will perceive. Hypothesis 2 was tested by applying the multiple-regression procedure. which permitted an analysis of the linear relationship between the continuous independent variable (angle degree) and per- ceived information. holding constant other key independent variables. The hypothesis was tested separately for visual discrimination learning and listening comprehension. From this linear combination. it was not possible to "estimate" the effect of angle of students' seating posi- tion on their learning processes. Multiple-regression analysis revealed no evidence of a linear effect of angle on the outcomes. 57 Moreover. examination of scatterplots displaying the relationship between angle and each outcome revealed no apparent nonlinear effect. Hypothesis 3: Students who receive cues beigne a film is shown will perceive more information than those who receive no cues. The one-way ANOVA technique was used to test this hypothesis. making it possible to "estimate" the effects of the treatment (cues given/no cues given). a categorical independent variable. on the stu- dents' perceived information. a continuous dependent variable. The treatment was assumed to be related to the amount of students! per- ceived information (VDL/LC). It was also assumed that cues possibly would have some’effect on students' performance in perceiving informar tion. unlike the effects experienced by subjects who were given no CUBS. Emu This chapter dealt with methods and procedures used in investigating the possible effects of (1) students' seating-position distance and angle from the SCF on their performance in perceiving information (VDL/LC) when viewing an instructional film and (2) stu- dents! being given cues or no cues before seeing the instructional film. The experimental design of the study was described in this chapter. The criteria for assigning students to seats in Experimental Settings One and Two were described in the Experimental Methodology section. 58 Both test instruments were evaluated for validity and reliability through three pilot studies. The Inventory Test data provided an overall description of the subjects; they completed this test before viewing the film. The Performance Test was designed to elicit relevant data on treatment (cues/no cues) and possible effects on students! performance in perceiving information. This test was completed after subjects viewed the film. Multiple-regression and one-way ANOVA were used to test the data for possible effects of seating distance. seating angle. and use of cues on student performance in perceiving information. Results of the statistical analyses performed for this study. as well as a discussion of the findings. are found in Chapter IV. CHAPTER IV STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF RESULTS AND DISCUSSION W The purpose of this chapter is to present and analyze the statistical findings of the experimental study. Hypotheses l and 2 were analyzed by applying the multiple-regression technique. which permitted analysis of the linear relationship between the dependent variables and a set of independent variables pertinent to these hypotheses. The hypotheses were also tested separately for visual discrimination learning (VDL) and listening comprehension (LC). as well as for TOTAL (VDL+LC) scores. the continuous dependent variables. That is. the results of the multiple-regression analysis are shown sep- arately for the continuous dependent variables as follows: (a) results for the TOTAL (VDL+LC) scores on perception of information. (b) results for listening comprehension (LC). and (c) results for visual discrimi- nation learning (VDL). The following theoretical multiple-regression model was used to test Hypotheses l and 2: Y= 0+81X1+82X2+o..+88X8+ngQ+e1J 59 60 where 31 represents how mean TOTAL (VDL+LC) scores or VDL scores or LC scores (Y1) changed in relation to one unit of X11 when the remainder of the variables were held constant. The independent variables used as predictors for testing all of the hypotheses are shown in Table 6. Table 6.--Independent variables used as predictors in the multiple- regression analysis. Description of Independent Variable Code-Label Typea Experimental Variables Seat ANGLE from screen's central focus ANGLE C CUES given/NO CUES given CUES D Seat DISTANCE from screen's centra1 DISTANCE C . focus Covariables PRE-TEST in human biology PRE-TEST C Self-score on seat's ANGLE (from O to 4 = bad to good) SELF-LOCATION D Vision (NORMAL/corrected) NORMAL VISION D Seat at screen's SIDE LEFTSIDE D (left/right side) COURSES TAKEN in human biology (from O to more than 4) COURSES TAKEN D Self-score on seat's DISTANCE (from O to 4 = bad to good) SELF-DISTANCE D _—.. aC = continuous D = discrete 61 The third hypothesis was analyzed by applying the one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) technique breakdown by the categorical independent variables of CUES given and NO CUES given. by regions. as shown in Figure 12. In other words. the experimental setting was divided into three regions: (a) Front Region I was the area between angles of 19 degrees and 50 degrees and distance about 8 to 10 feet to the left and to the right side of the screen's central focus in front of the room; (b) Action Region II. mentioned by Totusek and Staton- Spicer (1982). was the area between angles of 50 degrees and 90 degrees. and distance about 13 to 35 feet. to the left and to the right side of the screen's central focus in front of the room; (c) and Rear Region III was the area occupied by the last two rows (12 and 13) and columns a and j. starting at a 50-degree angle to the left and to the right side of the screen's central focus in front of the room (see Figure 12). Thus. Hypothesis 3 was tested by region. separately for percep- tion of information--TOTAL (VDL+LC) scores. for listening comprehension (LC) scores. and for visual discrimination learning (VDL) scores. the dependent variables. An alpha level of .OS was used to decide whether each hypothe- sis was supported or not. In the following pages. each hypothesis is restated. followed by the results of statistical analysis of that hypothesis. 62 IIIII .ll. IMFIEEEIEEIII IIIEEEEIIIIEI Inn-Imam _: =m _ . .IBII I: =£Ew 5E: _I333_U m regions: Front Region I, Action Region II, and Rear Region III. Figure 12.--Experimental setting identified by 63 amnesJLl Ho1ding constant the studentfls ang1e of vision and other key independent variab1es. the farther the student is from the screen's centra1 focus. the more information he/she wi11 perceive. A separate test was appiied for each avaiiab1e score: for perception of information--TOTAL (VDL+LC) scores. for 1istening comprehension (LC) scores. and for visua1 discrimination 1earning (VDL) scores. the continuous dependent variab1es. .Besults_Qi_mulL1ala:LeaLaa51Qn_anal¥§1&_Ign_IQIAL_L¥DLiLQl scones. Hypothesis 1a: Ho1ding constant the student's angie of vision and other key independent variab1es. the farther the student is from the screen's centra1 focus. the more information he/she wi11 perceive--TOTAL (VDL+LC) scores. Hypothesis 1a was not supported. 'There was no association between TOTAL (VDL+LC) scores and DISTANCE. The unstandardized beta (b) for DISTANCE was .0154 when a11 other independent variab1es were he1d constant. This va1ue was not significant at the a1pha = .05 1eve1. The simp1e-corre1ation coefficient between DISTANCE and TOTAL (VDL+LC) scores (r = -u0084) indicated a corre1ation near zero. which was not statistica11y significant at a1pha = .05 (p = .463). The mu1tip1ercorre1ation coefficient between the independent and dependent variab1es was .3977. which was significant at the a1pha = .05 1eve1. The squared mu1tip1e-corre1ation coefficient (R2 = .1581) indicated that 15.8% of the variation in the TOTAL (VDL+LC) scores was exp1ained 64 by the combined independent variab1es. which were inc1uded in the regression equation (see Tab1e 6). Tab1e 7 shows se1ected statistics obtained for the mu1tip1e corre1ation of the TOTAL (VDL+LC) scores with a11 of the mentioned predictors inc1uded in the regression equation. Tabie 7.--Ana1ysis of variance for the mu1tip1e corre1ation between the independent variab1es and the TOTAL (VDL+LC) scores. Source 552 df MS F Significance Regression 569.216 9 63.246 2.379 .017 (exp1ained) Residuai 3030.558 114 26.584 (unexp1ained) SS Tota1 3599.774 123 Muitip1e R = .39765 R2 = .15813 Standard deviation = 5.15595 Critica1 va1ue F 2 1.95 Tab1e 8 is a summary of the mu1tip1e-regression ana1ysis for TOTAL (VDL+LC) scores with the independent variab1es. 65 Tab1e 8.--Summary of mu1tip1e-regression data for TOTAL (VDL+LC) scores. Unstandardized Std. Error Variab1es b b F Signif. Ang1e -.0223 .032 .475 .492 Cues .999 .940 1.129 .290 Pre-test .517 .193 7.178 .008 Se1f-1ocation .716 1.277 .314 .576 Norma1 vision -.161 .954 .028 .866 Leftside 1.569 .967 2.635 .107 Courses taken 2.136 .978 4.771 .031 Distance .0154 .057 .074 .786 Seif—distance .509 1.313 .150 .699 (Constant) 29.532 2.955 99.857 .000 Graph 1 iiiustrates the expected change in Y1 for changes in X8 = DISTANCE. by using its two extreme va1ues (5 feet and 43 feet). whi1e ho1ding other variab1es 00$) constant at zero. The prediction equa- tion was Y; = a + b1X1 + . . . + b8X8 + b9X9 = where: 29.532 (intercept) = constant D II 0" ll .0154 (s1ope) X .0. I ” estimators (see Tab1e 6) X] . . . X7 and X9 = 0 X8 = DISTANCE = 1 X81 5 feet X82 = 43 feet then. Y81 = 29.532 + (.0154)(O) + . . . + (.0154)(5) + (.0154)(0) = 29.6 Y82 = 29.532 + (.0154)(0) + . . . + (.0154)(43) + (.0154)(0) = 30.2 66 Y. 40 . " 29 6 3002 O ' ‘k- 3 afiL—r | 20 . l ' . ' l 10 " ' ' . i ' . l n L_ O a I - I 4 1 n I . 10 20 30 40 50 X Graph 1. Predicting TOTAL (VDL+LC) scores when DISTANCE = 1. It was conc1uded that the effect of DISTANCE on TOTAL (VDL+LC) scores was not significant at the .05 1eve1. That is. the student's perception of information (TOTAL [VDL+LC] scores) was not significant1y affected by his/her seat's DISTANCE from the screen's centra1 focus. However. when a11 of the predictors (Tab1e 6) were inc1uded in the regression. the resuits demonstrated an overa11 significant L017) effect on the student's amount of perceived information exp1ained by those independent variab1es at the .05 1eve1 (see Tab1e 7). According to Pedhazur (1982). using the regression equation to predict the changes in TOTAL (VDL+LC) scores on the basis of given DISTANCE error associated with this equation. as we11 as random errors of the dependent variab1es. wou1d affect the accuracy of the predic- tion. The computed standard error 8 for distance was .057. Then. it 67 may be said that the actua1 TOTAL (VDL+LC) scores of approximate1y 68% of the subjects wou1d fa11 within the range Y':§.057. By using the resu1ts from the prediction equation. the interva1s for both DISTANCE predictors were as fo11ows: for 5 feet = (29.6 - .057) < Y < (29.6 + .057); for 43 feet = (30.2 - .057) < Y < (30.2 + .057). Pedhazur noted. A confidence interva1 provides more information than the informa- tion provided by a statement about the rejection of (or the fai1ure to reject) a nu11 hypothesis. which is aimost fa1se anyway. . . . The narrower the confidence interva1. the sma11er the range of possib1e nu11 hypotheses. and hence the greater the confidence in one's findings. (p. 29) A 95% confidence interva1 was computed for unstandardized beta (b) by using a1pha =.05 and t-ratio. Tab1e 9 shows the se1ected statistics obtained for the 95% confidence interva1 for TOTAL (VDL+LC) SCOPGS . Tab1e 9.--Confidence interva1 for TOTAL (VDL+LC) scores. Unstandardized Std. Error 95% Confidence Variab1es b b T Interva1 Cues .999 .940 1.063 -.8631. 2.8611 Pre-test .517 .193 2.679 .1348. .8998 Left side 1.569 .967 1.623 -.3460. 3.485 Courses taken 2.136 .978 2.184 .1990. 4.073 (CONSTANT) 29.532 2.955 9.992 -23.6770. 35.386 The DISTANCE confidence interva1 for TOTAL (VDL+LC) scores was found to be -.969. .128. Therefore. it may be stated with 95% confi- dence that the parameter 1ay within this range; that is. '5969 f 8 5 68 .128. Thus. b was not significant1y different from zero at thee.05 1eve1 (Pedhazur. 1982). .BesulIs_QI_mmlI12le:LaaI35519n_nnnl¥sis_IQL_LQ_chnes. Hypothesis 1b: Ho1ding constant the studentfls ang1e of vision and other key independent variab1es. the farther the student is from the screen's centra1 focus. the more information he/she w111 perceive--LC scores. Hypothesis 1b was not supported. 'There was no statistica11y significant difference in LC scores for DISTANCE. The unstandardized beta for DISTANCE was.-50057 when a11 other independent variab1es were he1d constant. This va1ue was not significant at the a1pha = .05 1eve1. The simp1e-corre1ation coefficient between DISTANCE and LC scores (r==-n0527) indicated a 10w and negative corre1ation in the samp1e. which was not significant at the a1pha = .05 1eve1 (p = .280). The mu1tip1e-correiation coefficient between the independent and dependent variab1es was.A0983. which was significant at the a1pha = .05 1eve1. The squared mu1tip1e-corre1ation coefficient (R2 = .1676) indicated that 16.8% of the variation in LC scores was exp1ained by the combined independent variab1es. which were inc1uded in the regression equation (see Tab1e 6). Tab1e 10 shows se1ected statistics obtained for the mu1tip1e corre1ation of the LC scores with a11 of the mentioned predictors inc1uded in the regression equation. 69 Tab1e 10.--Ana1ysis of variance for the mu1tip1e corre1ation between the independent variab1es and LC scores. Source 352 df MS F Significance Regression 301.537 9 33.504 2.54954 .010 (exp1ained) Residua1 1498.099 114 13.141 (unexp1ained) SS Tota1 1799.636 123 Mu1tip1e R = .40933 R2 = .16755 Standard deviation = 3.62508 Critica1 va1ue F = 1.95 Tab1e 11 is a summary of the mu1tip1e-regression data for LC scores with the independent variab1es. Tabie 11.--Summary of mu1tip1e-regression data for LC scores. Unstandardized Std. Error Variab1es b b F Signif. Cues .9729 .6609 2.167 .144 Pre-test .3708 .1358 7.459 .007 Left side .7826 .679 1.325 .252 Courses taken 1.584 .688 5.309 .023 (CONSTANT) 19.743 2.078 90.287 .000 Graph 2 i11ustrates the expected change in Y1 for changes in X8 = DISTANCE. by using its two extreme va1ues (5 feet and 43 feet). whi1e ho1ding other variab1es 005) constant at zero. The prediction equation was 70 Y; = a + b1X] + . . . + b8X8 + b9X9 = where: a 19.743 (intercept) = constant U I ' -.0057 (s1ope) X do II estimators (see Tab1e 6)) = X] . . . X7 and X9 = 0 X8 = DISTANCE = 1 5 feet x81 X82 = 43 feet then Y; = a + b1X1 + . . . + b8X8 + b9X9 = Y5] = 19.743 +'(-.0057)(0) + . . . __(-.0057)(5) + (-.0057)(0) = 19.7 Ygz = 19.743 + (-.0057)(0) + . . . + <-.0057)(43) + (-.oos7)(o> = 19.5 Y: 30~ 20 r 19‘7 1 10 - ’---| Graph 2. Predicting LC scores when DISTANCE = 1. 71 It was conc1uded that the effect of DISTANCE on LC scores was not statistica11y significant at the .05 1eve1. That is. the student's perception of information in terms of iistening comprehension was not significant1y affected by his/her seat's DISTANCE from the screen's centra1 focus. The computed standard error b for DISTANCE was .039. Then. it may be said that the actua1 LC scores of approximate1y 68% of the subjects wou1d fa11 within the range Yi't-039° By using the resu1ts from the prediction equation. the interva1s for both DISTANCE predic- tors were as fo11ows: for 5 feet = (19.7 - .039) < Y < (19.7 + .039); for 43 feet = (19.5 - .039) < Y < (19.5 + .039). A 95% confidence interva1 was computed for unstandardized beta. by using the a1pha = .05 1eve1 and t-ratio. Tab1e 12 shows the se1ected statistics obtained for the 95% confidence interva1 for LC scores . Tab1e 12.--Confidence interva1 for LC scores. Unstandardized Std. Error 95% Confidence Variab1es b b T Interva1 Cues .9729 .6609 1.472 -.336. 2.282 Pre—test .3708 .1358 2.731 .102. .639 Left side .7826 .679 1.151 -.S64. 2.129 Courses taken 1.5842 .688 2.304 .222. 2.946 72 The DISTANCE confidence interva1 for LC scores was computed as ~u085. .073. Therefore. it may be stated with 95% confidence that the parameter 1ay within this range; that is. -.085 5 B 5 .073. Thus. b was not significant1y different from zero at thee.05 1eve1 (Pedhazur. 1982). WWW. Hypothesis 1c: Ho1ding constant the studentfls ang1e of vision and other key independent variab1es. the farther the student is from the screen's centra1 focus. the more information he/she wi11 perceive--VDL scores. Hypothesis 1c was not supported. 'There was no statistica11y significant difference in VDL scores for DISTANCE. The unstandardized beta for DISTANCE was .0211 when a11 other independent variab1es were he1d constant. This va1ue was not significant at the a1pha = .05 1eve1. The simp1e-corre1ation coefficient between DISTANCE and VDL scores h~==.0685) indicated a 10w and positive corre1ation in the samp1e. which was not significant at the a1pha = .05 ieve1 (p = .225). The mu1tip1e-corre1ation coefficient between the independent and dependent variab1es was .30218. which was not significant at the a1 pha = .05 1eve1. The squared mu1tipie-corre1ation coefficient (R2 = .0913) indicated that 9.13% of the variation in VDL scores was exp1ained by the combined independent variab1es inc1uded in the regression equation (see Tab1e 6). 73 Tab1e 13 shows se1ected statistics obtained for the mu1tip1e corre1ation of the VDL scores with a11 of the mentioned predictors inc1uded in the regression equation. Tab1e 13.--Ana1ysis of variance for the mu1tip1e corre1ation between the independent variab1es and the VDL scores. Source SS2 df MS F Significance Regression 58.31291 9 6.47921 1.27286 .259 (exp1ained) Residua1 580.29193 114 5.09028 (unexp1ained) SS Tota1 638.60484 123 Mu1tip1e R = .30218 R2 = .09131 Standard deviation = 2.25616 Critica1 va1ue F = 1.95 Tab1e 14 is a summary of the mu1tip1e-regression data for VDL scores with the independent variab1es. 74 Tab1e 14.--Summary of mu1tip1e-regression data for VDL scores. Unstandardized Std. Error Variab1es b b F Signif. Ang1e -.0014 .0141 .0104 .919 Cues .026 .4113 .0039 .950 Pre—test .1466 .0845 3.008 .086 Se1f-1ocation .4034 .559 .521 .472 Norma1 vision .1089 .4173 .068 .795 Left side .7871 .4231 3.461 .065 Courses taken .5516 .4279 1.662 .200 Distance .0211 .0248 .723 .397 Se1f-distance .2295 .5747 .159 .690 (CONSTANT) 9.7883 1.2932 57.292 .000 Graph 3 i11ustrates the expected change in Y1 for changes in X8 = DISTANCE. by using its two extreme va1ues (5 feet and 43 feet). whi1e hoiding other variab1es 00$) constant at zero. The prediction equation was I Y1 = a + b1X] + . . . b8x8 + b9X9 = where: a = 9.788 (intercept) = constant b = .0211 (s1ope) X1 = estimators (see Tab1e 6) = X] . . . X7 and X9 = 0 X8 = DISTANCE = 1 X8] = 5 feet x82 = 43 feet then. Y; = a + b1X1 + . . . + b3X8 + b9X9 = Y81 = 9.788 + (.0211)(0) + . . . + (.0211)(5) + (.0211)(0) = 9.9 Y82 = 9.788 + (.0211)(0) + . . . + (.0211><43) + (.0211)(o> = 10.7 75 Graph 3. Predicting VDL scores when DISTANCE = 1. It was conc1uded that the effect of DISTANCE on VDL scores was not statistica11y significant at the a1pha =.05 1eve1. That is. the student's perception of information in terms of visua1 discrimination 1earning was not significant1y affected by his/her seatfls DISTANCE from the screen's centra1 focus. The computed error b for DISTANCE was .0248. Then. it may be said that the actua1 VDL scores of approximate1y 68% of the subjects wou1d faii within the range Y1 f .0248. By using the resu1ts from the prediction equation. the interva1s for both DISTANCE predictors were as fo11ows: for 5 feet = (9.9 - .0248) < Y < (9.9 + .0248); for 43 feet = (10.7 - .0248) < Y < (10.7 + .0248). A 95% confidence interva1 was computed for unstandardized beta. by using the a1 pha = .05 1eve1 and t-ratio. Tab1e 15 shows the 76 se1ected statistics obtained for the 95% confidence interva1 for VDL scores . Tab1e 15.--Confidence interva1 for VDL scores. Unstandardized Std. Error 95% Confidence Variab1es b b T Interva1 Cues .0260 .4113 .6322 -.7888. .8408 Pre—test .1466 .0845 1.734 -.0208. .3139 Left side .787 .4231 1.860 -.0510. 1.625 Courses taken .552 .4279 1.289 -.2960. 1.399 (CONSTANT) 9.7883 1.293 7.5692 -7.2260. 12.350 The DISTANCE confidence interva1 for VDL scores was found to be -n0281. .0703. Therefore. it may be stated with 95% confidence that the parameter 1ay within this range; that is. -u0281 g B 5 .0703. Thus. beta was not significant1y different from zero at the a1pha.= .05 1eve1 (Pedhazur. 1982). W W: Hoiding constant the student's seat distance from the screen's centra1 focus and other key independent variab1es. the sma11er the seat's ANGLE on the 1eft or the right side of the screen's centra1 focus in a horizonta1 p1ane in front of the room. the 1ess information the student wi11 perceive. A separate test was app1ied for each avaiiab1e score: for perception of information--TOTAL (VDL+LC) scores. for 1istening compre- hension (LC) scores. and for visua1 discrimination 1earning (VDL) scores. the continuous dependent variab1es. 77 , Results 9f m"]ij]g-[§g[§§§jgn aDQJysjs f9: IQIAI gyp|+|92 scenes. Hypothesis 2a: Hoiding constant the studentfls seat distance from the screen's centra1 focus and other key independent variab1es. the sma11er the seat's ANGLE on the 1eft or the right side of the screen's centra1 focus in a horizonta1 p1ane in front of the room. the 1ess information the student wi11 perceive--TOTAL (VDL+LC) scores. Hypothesis 2a was not supported. 'There was no statistica11y significant difference in TOTAL (VDL+LC) scores for ANGLE. The unstandardized beta for ANGLE was-«0223 when a11 other independent variab1es were he1d constant. 1his va1ue was not significant at the a1pha = .05 1eve1. The simp1e-corre1ation coefficient between ANGLE and TOTAL (VDL+LC) scores (r =‘-50865) indicated a 1ow and negative corre1ation in the samp1e. which was not significant at the a1pha =.05 1eve1 (p = .170). The mu1tip1e-correiation coefficient between the independent and dependent variab1es was 43977. which was significant at the a1pha = .05 1eve1. The squared mu1tip1e-corre1ation coefficient (R = .1581) indicated that 15.8% of the variation in the TOTAL (VDL+LC) scores was exp1ained by the combined independent variab1es inc1uded in the regression equation (see Tab1e 6). Tab1e 7 shows se1ected statistics obtained for the mu1tip1e correiation of the TOTAL(VDL+LC) scores with a11 of the mentioned predictors inc1uded in the regression equation. Tab1e 8 is a summary of the mu1tip1e-regression ana1ysis for TOTAL (VDL+LC) scores with the independent variab1es. 78 Graph 4 i11ustrates the expected change in Y1 for changes in x1 = ANGLE. by using its two extreme va1ues (19 degrees and 89 degrees). whi1e hoiding other variab1es (X's) constant at zero. The prediction equation was I Y1 = a + D1X] + . . . + b9X9 = where: a = 29.532 (intercept) = constant b = -.0223 (s1ope) X1 = estimators (see Tab1e 6) = X2 . . . X9 = 0 x1 = ANGLE = 1 X1] = 19 degrees x12 = 89 degrees then. Y41 = 29.532 + (-.0223)<19> + . . . + (-.0223)(0) = 29.1 Y12 40 29.1 2 30. 20»- ------,.q I --- -— --. .- b b - p D I . h P p 10 20 30 40 50 BO 70 80 90 Graph 4. Predicting TOTAL (VDL+LC) scores when ANGLE = 1. 79 It was conc1uded that the effect of ANGLE on TOTAL (VDL+LC) scores was not significant at the a1 pha = .05 1eve1. That is. the student's perception of information (TOTAL [VDL+LC] scores) was not significant1y affected by his/her seat's ANGLE from the screen's centra1 focus. However. when a11 of the predictors (Tab1e 6) were inc1uded in the regression equation. the resu1ts demonstrated an over- a11 significant (.017) effect on the student's perceived information exp1ained by those estimators. at the a1pha = .05 1eve1 (see Tab1e 7). According to Pedhazur (1982). using a regression equation to predict the changes in TOTAL (VDL+LC) scores on the basis of a given ANGLE. errors associated with this equation. as we11 as random errors of the dependent variab1es. wou1d affect the accuracy of the predic- tion. The computed standard error beta for ANGLE was .0323. It may be said. then. that the actua1 TOTAL (VDL+LC) scores of approximate1y 68% of the subjects wou1d fa11 within the range Y' t .0323. By using the resu1ts from the prediction equation. the interva1s for both ANGLE predictors were as fo11ows: for 19 degrees = (29.1 - .0323) < Y < (29.1 + .0323); for 89 degrees = (27.6 - .0323) < Y < (27.6 + .0323). A 95% confidence interva1 was computed for unstandardized beta. by using a1 pha = .05 and t-ratio. Tab1e 9 shows the se1ected statis- tics obtained for the 95% confidence interva1 for TOTAL (VDL+LC) scores. The ANGLE confidence interva1 for TOTAL (VDL+LC) scores was -.0863. .0417. Therefore. it may be stated with 95% confidence that the parameter 1ay within this range; that is. -.0863 <_ B 5 .0417. Thus. 80 beta was not significant1y different from zero at the a1pha =.05 1eve1 (Pedhazur. 1982). WWW. Hypothesis 2b: Ho1ding constant the student's seat distance from the screen's centra1 focus and other key independent variab1es. the smaiier the seat's ANGLE on the 1eft or the right side of the screen's centra1 focus in a horizonta1 p1ane in front of the room. the 1ess information the student wi11 perceive--LC scores. Hypothesis 2b was not supported. ‘There was no statistica11y significant difference in LC scores for ANGLE. The unstandardized beta for ANGLE was -.0208 when a11 other independent variabies were he1d constant. This va1ue was not significant at the a1pha = .05 1eve1. The simp1e-corre1ation coefficient between ANGLE and LC scores (r =-J171) indicated a 1ow and negative corre1ation in the samp1e. which was not significant at the a1pha = .05 1eve1 (p = .098). The mu1tip1e-corre1ation coefficient between the independent variab1es was .40933. which was significant at the a1pha==.05 1eve1. The squared mu1tip1e-corre1ation coefficient (R2 = .1676) indicated that 16.8% of the variation in L0 scores was exp1ained by the combined independent variab1es inc1uded in the regression equation (see Tab1e 6). Se1ected statistics obtained for the mu1tip1e corre1ation of the LC scores with a11 of the mentioned predictors inc1uded in the regression equation are shown in Tab1e 10. The summary of the mu1tip1e-regression ana1ysis for LC scores with a11 of the independent variab1es is shown in Tab1e 11. Graph 5 i11ustrates the expected change in Y1 for changes in x1 = ANGLE. by using its two extreme va1ues (19 degrees and 89 degrees). 81 whiie ho1ding other variab1es (X's) constant at zero. The prediction equation was Y; = a = b1X] + . . . + b9X9 = where: a = 19.743 (intercept) = constant b = -.0208 (s1ope) X1 = estimators (see Tab1e 6) = X2 . . . X9 = O x1= AMSLE =1 X11 = 19 degrees x12 = 89 degrees then. Vi] = 19.743 + (-.0208)(19) + . . . + (-.0208)(0) = 19.4 Yaz = 19.743 + (-.0208)(89) + . . . + <-.ozoe1 = 17.9 40 L 17.0 Graph 5. Predicting LC scores when ANGLE = 1. 82 It was conc1uded that the effect of ANGLE on LC scores was not statistica11y significant at the a1pha = .05 1evei. That is. the student's perception of information in terms of 1istening comprehension was not significant1y affected by his/her seat's ANGLE from the screen's centra1 focus. The computed standard error beta for ANGLE was .0227. Then. it may be said that the actua1 LC scores of approximate1y 68% of the subjects wou1d fa11 within the range Y1 T. .0227, By using the resu1ts of the prediction equation. the intervais for both ANGLE predictors were as foi1ows: for 19 degrees = (19.4 - .0227) < Y < (19.4 + .0227); for 89 degrees = (17.9 - .0227) < Y < (17.9 + .0227). A 95% confidence interva1 was computed for unstandardized beta. by using the a1 pha = .05 1eve1 and t-ratio. The se1ected statistics obtained for the 95% confidence interva1 for LC scores and other independent variab1es are shown in Tab1e 7. The AMSLE confidence interva1 for LC scores was found to be -.0658. .0242. Therefore. it may be stated with 95% confidence that the parameter 1ay within this range; that is. -.0658 5 B5 .0242. Thus. beta was not significant1y different from zero at the a1pha = .05 1eve1 (Pedhazur. 1982). WWW. Hypothesis 2c: Ho1ding constant the student's seat distance from the screen's centra1 focus and other key independent variab1es. the sma11er the seat's ANGLE on the 1eft or the right side of the screen's centra1 focus in a horizonta1 p1ane in front of the room. the 1ess information the student wi11 perceive--VDL scores. Hypothesis 2c was not supported. There was no statistica11y significant difference in VDL scores for ADELE. The unstandardized 83 beta for ANGLE was-n0014 when a11 other independent variab1es were he1d constant. This va1ue was not significant at the a1pha =.05 1eve1. The simp1e—corre1ation coefficient between Ang1e and VDL scores (r==-nOO88) indicated a near-zero corre1ation in the samp1e. which was not significant at the a1pha = .05 1eve1 (p = .461). The mu1tip1e- correiation coefficient between the independent and dependent variab1es was .30218. which was not significant at the a1pha = .05 1eve1. The squared mu1tip1e-corre1ation coefficient (R2 = .0913) indicated that 9.13% of the variation in VDL scores was exp1ained by the combined independent variab1es inc1uded in the regression equation (see Tab1e 6). The se1ected statistics obtained for the mu1tip1e corre1ation of the VDL scores with a11 of the mentioned predictors inc1uded in the regression equation are shown in Tab1e 13. The summary of the mu1tip1e- regression ana1ysis for VDL scores with the independent variab1es is shown in Tab1e 14. Graph 6 i11ustrates the expected change in Y1 for changes in x1 = ANGLE. by using its two extreme va1ues (19 degrees and 89 degrees). whi1e ho1ding other variab1es 005) constant at zero. The prediction equation was where: a = 9.788 (intercept) = constant b = -.0014 (s1ope) X1 = estimators (see Tab1e 6) = X2 . . . X9 = 0 84 x1= NELE= 1 X1] = 19 degrees x12 = 89 degrees then. I yaz = 9.788 + (—.0014)(89) + . . . + <-.0014>(0) = 9.7 50~ 40 1- r 30 1- 20 - 9.8 9.7 10. IA . f i I ' J. I o l A .j l e A A a - n I L Graph 6. Predicting VDL scores when ANGLE = 1. It was conc1uded that the effect of ANGLE on VDL scores was not statistica11y significant at the a1pha =.05 1eve1. That is. the student's perception of information in terms of visua1 discrimination 1earning was not affected by his/her seat's ANGLE from the screen's centra1 focus. 85 The computed standard error beta for ANGLE was .0141. It may be said that the actua1 VDL scores of approximate1y 68% of the subjects wou1d fa11 within the range Y';t.0141. By using the resu1ts of the prediction equation. the interva1s for both ANGLE predictors were as foi1ows: for 19 degrees = (9.8 - .0141) < Y < (9.8 + .0141); for 43 degrees (9.7 - .0141) < Y < (9.7 + .014). A 95% confidence interva1 was computed for unstandardized beta. by using the a1pha = .05 1eve1 and t-ratio. Se1ected statistics obtained for the 95% confidence interva1 for VDL scores are shown in Tab1e 15. The ANGLE confidence interva1 for the VDL scores was found to be -50294. .0266. Therefore. it may be stated with 95% confidence that the parameter 1ay within this range; that is. -u0294 5 B 5 .0266. Thus beta was not significant1y different from zero at the a1pha =.05 1eve1 (Pedhazur. 1982). W ‘fiypgtn951541: Students who receive CUES beiene a fi1m is shown wi11 perceive more information than those who receive no CUES. Hypothesis 3 was first tested by c1assroom region. .Separate ana1yses were conducted for perception of information-~TOTAL (VDL+LC) scores. for 1istening comprehension (LC) scores. and for visua1 dis- crimination 1earning (VDL) scores. the dependent variab1es. The theoreticai mode1 appropriate for this ana1ysis was based on Pedhazur (1982). in which "Yij =11 + 83 + a” 86 where Y1J = score of individua1 “V in group or treatment HP;‘U = the popu1ation mean; SJ = the effect of treatment 2V; 611 = error associated with the score of the individua1 ”H in group or treatment '10. O O O" (p. 291). Hypothesis 3 was tested by using ana1ysis of variance with an a1pha = .05 1eve1 as the significance 1eve1 for acceptance. The strength of the effects of giving CUES on perception of information (TOTAL [VDL+LC])—-that is. the degree of variabi1ity in the whoie group (124) subjects) and. in particu1ar. the variabi1ity within giving CUES and giving NO CUES--was measured by the descriptive statistic etaz. The va1ue of eta2 wi11 be 1.0 if and on1y if there is no variabiiity within each category of [CUES/N0 CUES] and there is some variabi1ity between categories. The index wi11 be zero (0) if and on1y if there is no difference among the means of [CUES and N0 CUES]. Therefore. eta2 = 0 indicates that there is no effect of [CUES/NO CUES]. o o 0 (N16 6t 31.: 1975' p. 401) FRONT REGION I The criticai va1ue for Front Region I with 1. 29 degrees of freedom was F = 4.21. WW5. Hypothesis.3.Ia: .Students who receive CUES before a fi1m is shown wi11 perceive more information than those who receive N0 CUES-- TOTAL (VDL+LC) scores. Hypothesis 3.1a was not supported. There was no statistica11y significant difference in TOTAL (VDL+LC) scores between the CUES and N0 CUES groups in Front Region I. at the a1 pha = .05 1eve1 (.1660). It may be inferred that. for Front Region I. being given CUES before showing a fi1m did not have a significant effect on students' 87 perception of information at the a1pha==.05 1eve1. However. eta2 = .0698 indicated some CUES effects on perception of information (TOTAL [VDL+LC]); hence eta2 was different from zero (Nie et a1.. 1975). The simp1e-corre1ation coefficient between CUES and TOTAL (VDL+LC) scores (r = .1058) indicated a 1ow and positive corre1ation in the samp1e. which was not significant at the a1pha = .05 1eve1 (p = .121). Tab1e 16 shows the main statistica1 characteristics of the subjects in the group. Tab1e 16.--Summary statistics for TOTAL (VDL+LC) scores: Hypothesis 3.1a. Variab1e N Sum Mean Variance Std. Dev. 882 No cues 15 570 38.0000 18.4286 4.2929 258.0000 Cues 14 490 35.0000 46.9231 6.8500 610.0000 SS tota1 29 1.060 36.5517 33.3276 5.7730 933.1724 Tab1e 17 shows the se1ected statistics obtained from the ana1ysis of variance for TOTAL (VDL+LC) scores. Tab1e 17.--ANOVA resu1ts for TOTAL (VDL+LC) scores: Hypothesis 3.1a. Source 552 df MS F Signif. eta2 Between groups 65.1724 1 65.1724 2.0273 .166 .0698 Within groups 868.0000 27 32.1481 55 tota1 933.1724 28 88 W. Hypothesis 35Hn Students who receive CUES before a fi1m is shown wi11 perceive more information than those who receive N0 CUES--LC scores. Hypothesis 3.Ib was not supported. There was no statistica11y significant difference in LC scores between the CUES and N0 CUES groups in Front Region I. at the a1pha==.05 1eve1. It may be inferred that. for Front Region I. being given CUES before showing a fi1m did not have a significant effect on students' 1istening comprehension at the a1pha = .05 1eve1. However. eta2 = .0522 indicated some CUES effects on LC scores; hence eta was different from zero (Nie et a1.. 1975). The simp1e-corre1ation coefficient between CUES and LC scores (r = .1386) indicated a 1ow and positive corre1ation in the samp1e. which was not significant at the .05 1eve1 (p = .062). Tab1e 18 contains the main statistica1 characteristics of the subjects in the group. Tab1e 18.--Summary statistics for LC scores: Hypothesis 3.Ib. Variab1e N Sum Mean Variance Std. Dev. 852 No cues 15 376 25.0667 7.0667 2.6583 98.9333 Cues 14 327 23.3571 21.9396 4.6840 285.2143 SS tota1 29 703 24.2414 14.4754 3.8047 405.3103 Tab1e 19 shows the se1ected statistics obtained from the ana1ysis of variance for LC scores. 89 Tab1e 19.--ANOVA resu1ts for LC scores: Hypothesis 3.Ib. Source 852 df MS F Signif. eta2 Between groups 21.1627 1 21.1627 1.4874 .233 .0522 Within groups 384.1476 27 14.2277 SS tota1 405.2103 28 WW. Hypothesis 3.Ic: Students who receive CUES before a fi1m is shown wi11 perceive more information than those who receive»N0 CUES--VDL scores. Hypothesis 3.Ic was not supported. There was no difference in VDL scores between the CUES and NO CUES groups in Front Region I at the .05 1eve1. It may be inferred that. for Front Region I. being given CUES before showing a fi1m did not have a significant effect on students' visua1 discrimination 1earning at the .05 1eve1. However. eta2 = .0641 indicated some CUES effects on visua1 discrimination 1earning; hence eta was different from zero (Nie et EL" 1975). The simp1e—corre1ation coefficient between CUES and VDL scores (r = .0186) indicated a 1ow and positive corre1ation in the samp1e. which was not significant at the a1pha = .05 ieve1 (p = .419). Tab1e 20 shows the main statistica1 characteristics of the subjects in this group. 90 Tab1e 20.--Summary statistics for VDL scores: Hypothesis 3.Ic. Variab1e N Sum Mean Variance Std. Dev. $52 No cues 15 194 12.9333 6.2095 2.4919 86.9333 Cues 14 163 11.6429 6.8626 2.6197 89.2143 55 tota1 29 357 12.3103 6.7217 2.5926 188.2069 Tab1e 21 shows the se1ected statistics obtained from the ana1ysis of variance for VDL scores. Tab1e 21.--ANOVA resu1ts for VDL scores: Hypothesis 3.Ic. Source 552 df MS F Signif. eta2 Between groups 12.0593 1 12.0593 1.8485 .1852 .0641 Within groups 176.1476 27 6.5240 55 tota1 188.2069 28 ACTION REGION II The critica1 va1ue for Action Region II with 1. 63 degrees of freedom was F = 3.99. .Ba5nlIE_QI_ANQlA_IQ£_IQIAL_L1QLiLQl_§QQ£es. Hypothesis 3.IIa: Students who receive CUES before a fi1m is shown wi11 perceive more information than those who receive N0 CUES-- TOTAL (VDL+LC) scores. Hypothesis 3.IIa was supported. There was a statistica11y significant difference in TOTAL (VDL+LC) scores between the CUES and NO CUES groups in Action Region II (.0033) at the a1pha = .05 1eve1. It 91 may be inferred that. for Action Region II. being given CUES before showing a fiim did have a significant effect on students! perception of information at the .05 1eve1. Eta2 = .1292 indicated a strong effect of being given cues before showing a fi1m on students' perception of information (TOTAL [VDL+LC] scores); eta2 was different from zero (Nie et a1.. 1975). The simp1e—corre1ation coefficient between CUES and TOTAL (VDL+LC) scores (r = .1058) indicated a 1ow and positive corre1ation in the samp1e. which was not statistica11y significant at the a1pha =.05 1eve1 (p==.121). Tab1e 22 contains the main statistica1 characteris- tics of the subjects in this group. Tab1e 22.--Summary statistics for TOTAL (VDL+LC) scores: Hypothesis 3.IIa. Variabie N Sum Mean Variance Std. Dev. $82 No cues 32 1.057 33.0313 33.8377 5.8170 1048.9688 Cues 33 1.216 36.8485 17.0701 4.1216 546.2424 SS tota1 65 2.273 34.9692 28.6240 5.3501 1831.9385 Tab1e 23 shows the se1ected statistics obtained from the ana1ysis of variance for TOTAL (VDL+LC) scores. 92 Tab1e 23.--ANOVA resu1ts for TOTAL (VDL+LC) scores: Hypothesis 3.IIa. Source SS2 df MS F Signif. eta2 Between groups 236.7273 1 236.7273 9.3491 .0033 .1292 Within groups 1595.2112 63 25.3208 55 tota1 1831.9385 64 MAW. Hypothesis 3.IIb: Students who receive CUES before a fiim is shown wi11 perceive more information than those who receive NO CUES--LC scores. Hypothesis 3.IIb was supported. There was a statistica11y significant difference in LC scores between the CUES and N0 CUES groups in Action Region II at the a1pha = .05 1eve1 (.0065). It may be inferred that. for Action Region II. being given CUES before showing a fiTm did have a significant effect on students' 1istening comprehension at the .05 1eve1. Hence eta2 = .1118. which indicated a strong CUES effect on L0 scores; etaz, then. was different from zero (Nie et a1” 1975). The simpTe-correiation coefficient between CUES and 1istening comprehension (LC) scores (r = .1386) indicated a 1ow and positive corre1ation in the samp1e. which was not statistica11y significant at the a1pha = .05 1eve1 (p = .062). Tab1e 24 shows the main statistica1 characteristics of the subjects in this group. 93 Tab1e 24.--Summary statistics for LC scores: Hypothesis 3.IIb. Variab1e N Sum Mean Variance Std. Dev. SS2 No cues 32 679 21.2188 19.9183 4.4630 617.4688 Cues 33 786 23.8182 7.9659 2.8224 254.9091 55 tota1 65 1.465 22.5385 15.3462 3.9174 982.1538 Tab1e 25 shows the se1ected statistics obtained from the ana1ysis of variance for LC scores. Tabie 25.--ANOVA resu1ts for LC scores: Hypothesis 3.IIb. Source 582 df MS F Signif. eta2 Between groups 109.7760 1 109.7760 7.9276 .0065 .1118 Within groups 872.3778 63 13.8473 SS tota1 982.1538 64 WW. Hypothesis 3.IIc: Students who receive CUES before a fiim is shown wii1 perceive more information than those who receive N0 CUES--VDL scores. Hypothesis 3.IIc was supported. There was a statistica11y significant difference in VDL scores between the CUES and NO CUES groups in Action Region II at the a1pha = .05 Teve1 L0186). It may be inferred that. for Action Region II. being given CUES before showing a fi1m did have a significant effect on students'1visua1 discrimination 1earning (VDL) at the .05 1eve1. Therefore. eta2 = .0849 indicated 94 some CUES effects on visua1 discrimination Tearning; hence eta2 was different from zero (Nie et a1.. 1975). The simp1e-corre1ation coefficient between CUES and visua1 discrimination 1earning (VDL) scores (r = .0186) indicated a 1ow and positive corre1ation in the samp1e. which was not significant at the a1pha = .05 1eve1 (p = .419). Tab1e 26 contains the main statistica1 characteristics of the subjects in this group. Tab1e 26.--Summary statistics for VDL scores: Hypothesis 3.IIc. Variab1e N Sum Mean Variance Std. Dev. 852 No cues 32 378 11.8125 4.6089 2.1468 142.8750 Cues 33 430 13.0303 3.6553 1.9119 116.9697 58 tota1 65 808 12.4308 4.4365 2.1063 283.9385 v Tab1e 27 shows the se1ected statistics obtained from the ana1ysis of variance for VDL scores. Tab1e 27.--ANOVA resu1ts for VDL scores: Hypothesis 3.IIc. Source 552 df MS F Signi f. etaz Between groups 23.0938 1 23.0938 5.8416 .0186 .0849 Within groups 259.8447 63 4.1245 58 tota1 283.9385 64 95 REAR REGION III The critica1 va1ue for Rear Region III with 1. 28 degrees of freedom was F = 4.20 .B9iulI5_QI_ANQ1A_IQ£_IQIAL_LMDL1LQQ_§£9£25. Hypothesis 3.IIIa: Students who receive CUES before a fi1m is shown wi11 perceive more information than those who receive NO CUES--TOTAL (VDL+LC) scores. Hypothesis 3.IIIa was not supported. There was no statis- tica11y significant difference in TOTAL (VDL+LC) scores between the CUES and N0 CUES groups in Rear Region III. at the a1pha = .05 1eve1 (5839). It may be inferred that. for Rear Region III. being given CUES before showing a fi1m did not have a significant effect on students' perception of information at the a1pha =.05 1eve1. However. eta2 = .0015 indicated a very poor CUES effect on TOTAL (VDL+LC) scores; hence eta2 was different from zero (Nie et a1.. 1975). The simp1e-corre1ation coefficient between CUES and TOTAL (VDL+LC) scores (r = .1058) indicated a 10w and positive corre1ation in the samp1e. which was not significant at the a1pha = .05 1eve1 (p = .121). Tab1e 28 shows the main statistica1 characteristics of the subjects of this group. Tab1e 28.--Summary statistics for TOTAL (VDL+LC) scores: Hypothesis 3.IIIa. Variab1e N Sum Mean Variance Std. Dev. 882 No cues 17 620 36.4706 21.6397 4.6518 346.2353 Cues 13 469 36.0769 35.0769 5.9226 420.9231 SS tota1 30 1.089 36.3000 26.4931 5.1471 768.3000 96 Tab1e 29 shows se1ected statistics obtained from the ana1ysis of variance for TOTAL (VDL+LC) scores. Tab1e 29.--ANOVA resu1ts for TOTAL (VDL+LC) scores: Hypothesis 3.IIIa. Source SS2 df MS F Signif. eta2 Between groups 1.1416 1 1.416 .0417 .8397 .0015 Within groups 767.1584 28 27.3985 SS tota1 768.3000 29 WW5. Hypothesis 3.IIIb: Students who receive CUES before a fi1m is shown wi11 perceive more information than those who receive N0 CUES--LC scores. Hypothesis 3.IIIb was not supported. There was no statis- tica11y significant difference in 1istening comprehension (LC) scores between the CUES and N0 CUES groups in Rear Region III at the a1pha = .05 1eve1 (.683). It may be inferred that. for Rear Region III. being given CUES before showing a fi1m did not have a significant effect on students' LC scores at the .05 1eve1. However. eta2 = .006 indicated a very poor CUES effect on 1istening comprehension; hence eta2 was dif- ferent from zero (Nie et a1.. 1975). The simp1e-corre1ation coefficient between CUES and 1istening comprehension (LC) scores (r = .1386) indicated a Tow and positive corre1ation in the samp1e. which was not significant at the a1pha =.05 97 1eve1 (p = .062). Tab1e 30 contains the main statistica1 characteris- tics of the subjects in this group. Tab1e 30.--Summary statistics for LC scores: Hypothesis 3.IIIb. Variabie N Sum Mean Variance Std. Dev. 882 NO cues 17 391 23.0000 12.3750 3.5178 198.0000 Cues 13 305 23.5385 12.7692 3.5734 153.2308 55 tota1 30 597 23.2333 12.1851 3.4907 353.3567 Tab1e 31 shows se1ected statistics obtained from the ana1ysis of variance for LC scores. Tab1e 31.--ANOVA resu1ts for LC scores: HYPOthesiS 3.IIIb. Source SS2 df MS F Signif. eta2 Between groups 2.1359 1 2.1359 .1703 .683 .006 Within groups 351.2308 28 12.5440 SS tota1 353.3667 29 WW. Hypothesis 3.IIIc: Students who receive CUES before a fi1m is shown wi11 perceive more information than those who receive N0 CUES--VDL scores. Hypothesis 3.IIIc was not supported. There was no statis- tica11y significant difference in VDL scores between the CUES and NO CUES groups in Rear Region III at the a1pha==.05 1eve1. It may be 98 inferred that. for Rear Region III. being given CUES before showing a fiim did not have a significant effect on students'1visua1 discrimina- tion 1earning (VDL) at the a1pha = .05 1eve1. However. eta2 = .0411 indicated some CUES effects on visua1 discrimination 1earning scores; hence eta2 was different from zero (Nie et EL” 1975). The simp1e-corre1ation coefficient between CUES and VDL scores (r = .0186) indicated a 1ow and positive corre1ation in this samp1e. which was not significant at a1pha = .05 (p = .419). Tab1e 32 shows the main characteristics of the subjects in this group. Tab1e 32.--Summary statistics for VDL scores: Hypothesis 3.IIIc. Variab1e N Sum Mean Variance Std. Dev. SS2 No cues 17 229 13.4706 3.2647 1.8068 52.2353 Cues 13 163 12.5385 8.1026 2.8465 97.2308 SS tota1 30 392 13.0667 5.3747 2.3183 155.8667 Tab1e 33 shows se1ected statistics obtained from the ana1ysis of variance for VDL scores. Tab1e 33.--ANOVA resu1ts for VDL scores: Hypothesis 3.IIIc. Source 552 df MS F Signif. eta2 Between groups 6.4006 1 6.4006 1.199 .2828 .0411 Within groups 149.4661 28 5.3381 58 tota1 155.8667 29 99 Hypothesis 3: Students who receive CUES before a fi1m is shown wi11 perceive more information than those who receive N0 CUES. The critica1 va1ue for the samp1e with 2. 121 degrees of freedom was F 2 3.07. W. Hypothesis 3 was not supported in terms of TOTAL (VDL+LC) scores. There was no statistica11y significant difference in TOTAL (VDL+LC) scores between the CUES and N0 CUES groups in the samp1e as a who1e. at the a1pha = .05 1eve1. It may be inferred that. for the tota1 samp1e. being given CUES before showing a fi1m did not have a significant effect (a1pha = .05 1eve1) on students' perception of information. in terms of visua1 discrimination 1earning and Tistening comprehension (F = 1.136; F prob. = .3244). The simp1e-corre1ation coefficient between CUES and TOTAL (VDL+LC) scores (r = .1058) indicated a Tow and positive corre1ation in the samp1e. which was not significant at the a1pha = .05 1eve1 (p = .121). Tab1e 34 shows the main characteristics of the subjects in this group. Tab1e 34.--Summary statistics for TOTAL (VDL+LC) scores: Hypothesis 3. Group N Mean Std. Dev. Std. Error Region I 29 36.5517 5.7730 1.0720 Region II 65 34.9692 5.3501 .6636 Region III 30 36.3000 5.1471 .9397 Tota1 124 35.6613 100 Tab1e 35 shows se1ected statistics obtained from the ana1ysis of variance for TOTAL (VDL+LC) scores. Tab1e 35.--ANOVA resu1ts for TOTAL (VDL+LC) scores: Hypothesis 3. Source 255 df MS F F Prob. Between groups 66.3633 2 33.1817 1.136 .3244 Within groups 3533.4109 121 29.2017 Tota1 3599.7742 123 WWW. Hypothesis 3 was not supported in terms of LC scores. 'There was no statistica11y significant differ- ence in LC scores between the CUES and NO CUES groups in the samp1e as a who1e at the a1pha==.05 1eve1. It may be inferred that. for the entire samp1e. being given CUES before showing a fi1m did not have a significant effect on students' 1istening comprehension at the .05 1eve1 (F = 2.044; F Prob. = .1340). The simp1e—corre1ation coefficient between CUES and LC scores (r==.1386) indicated a 1ow and positive correTation in the sampTe. which was not significant at the a1pha = .05 1eve1 (p = .062). Tab1e 36 shows the main characteristics of the subjects in this group. Tab1e 37 shows se1ected statistics obtained from the ana1ysis of variance for LC scores. 101 Tab1e 36.--Summary statistics for LC scores: Hypothesis 3. Group N Mean Std. Dev. Std. Error Region I 29 24.2414 3.8047 .7065 Region II 65 22.5385 3.9174 .4859 Region III 30 23.2333 3.4907 .6373 Tota1 124 23.1048 Tab1e 37.--ANOVA resu1ts for LC scores: Hypothesis 3. Source SS2 df MS F F Prob. Between groups 58.8062 2 29.4031 2.044 .1340 Within groups 1740.8309 121 14.3870 Tota1 1799.6371 123 WWW. Hypothesis 3 was not supported in terms of VDL scores. 'There was no statistica11y significant difference in VDL scores between the CUES and NO CUES groups in the samp1e as a whoie. at the a1pha==.05 1eve1. It may be inferred that. for this samp1e. being given CUES before showing a fi1m did not have a significant effect on students"visua1 discrimination 1earning at the .05 1eve1 (F = 1.020; F Prob. = .3635). The simpTe-correTation coefficient between CUES and VDL scores (r'==.0186) indicated a 1ow and positive corre1ation in this samp1e. which was not significant at the a1pha = .05 1eve1 (p = .419). Tab1e 38 shows the main characteristics of the subjects in this group. Tab1e 38.--Summary statistics for VDL scores: 102 Hypothesis 3. Group N Mean Std. Dev. Std. Error Region I 29 12.3103 2.5926 .4814 Region II 65 12.4308 2.1063 .2613 Region III 30 13.0667 2.3183 .4233 Tota1 124 12.5565 Tab1e 39 shows se1ected statistics obtained from the ana1ysis of variance for VDL scores. Tab1e 39.--ANOVA resu1ts for VDL scores: Hypothesis 3. Source SS df MS F F Prob. Between groups 10.5928 2 5.2964 1.020 .3635 Within groups 628.0120 121 5.1902 Tota1 638.6048 124 To anaiyze the interaction effects of cues. pre-test. and courses taken in the human bioTogy fie1d by region. it was necessary to combine the Front I and Rear III Regions into the Nonaction Region; Action Region II was maintained in the ana1ysis of variance. There was a statistica11y significant interaction for TOTAL (VDL+LC) scores between region and cues given to students before viewing a fi1m. at the a1pha.=.05 1eve1(.025). (See Graph 7.) 103 Y 40 .. 36.85 __2?L2—-- Non-Action Region _ -1 ‘- ’ I) n \35‘:\\ 1 33.03 Action Reg on m 1. 10 11- ‘1. o I ‘ ' Cues No Cues Graph 7.--TOTAL (VDL+LC) mean scores by CUES/region. There was no significant interaction for LC scores between region and cues given to students before viewing a fi1m. at the a1pha = .05 1eve1 (.099). (See Graph 8.) Y m I. 23-82 23.97 _ .. - I .. — .4.- -- Non-Action Region 20.. 23.94 21.22 Action Region 10.. 0 f 5 : Cues No Cues Graph 8. LC mean scores by CUES/region. 104 There was a statistica11y significant interaction for VDL scores between region and cues given to students before viewing a fi1m. at the a1pha = .05 1eve1 (.014). (See Graph 9.) Y 20 .. 13°03 13'22 .,._ Non-Action Region -03: ‘—£’-- 10 "L 12.07 11.81 ACtion Region J o f 5 ‘ Cues No Cues Graph 9.--VDL mean scores by CUES/region. 0.1.5515.st Before discussing the resu1ts of the study. it is important to review some information on the physica1 format of Experimenta1 Setting Two. in which the research was conducted. 'The room was about 37 feet by 55 feet. and it was considered to be a narrow c1assroom environment. Hypothesis 1 predicted that students seated farther from the screen's centra1 focus wou1d perceive more information in terms of visua1 discrimination 1earning and iistening comprehension than those who were seated c1ose to the screen. From the resu1ts. it was con- c1uded that seating DISTANCE from the screen's centra1 focus did not have a statistica11y significant effect on students' perception of information for TOTAL (VDL+LC) scores. for LC scores. or for VDL scores at the .05 1eve1 of significance. 105 The graphs i11ustrating the 1inear regression equations suggested a positive corre1ation near zero for TOTAL (VDL+LC) scores and VDL scores and a negative corre1ation. a1so near zero. for LC scores. The simp1e—corre1ation coefficient between DISTANCE and subjects' eva1uation of seat distance (SELF-DISTANCE) (r = .3442) from the screen's centra1 focus indicated a 10w and positive corre1ation. which was significant at the a1pha = .05 1eve1 (p = .001). This finding seemed to indicate that students preferred seats farther from the screen's centra1 focus in this narrow environment. Hypothesis 2 predicted that students seated at a sma11er ang1e from the screen's centra1 focus wou1d perceive 1ess information in terms of visua1 discrimination 1earning and 1istening comprehension than wou1d those whose seats were p1aced at a Targer ang1e from the screen's centra1 focus. From the resu1ts. it was conc1uded that seat- ing ANGLE from the screen's centra1 focus did not have a statistica11y significant effect on students' perceived information at the a1pha = .05 1eve1. The graphs i11ustrating the 1inear regression equations suggested a tendency for a negative corre1ation for TOTAL (VDL+LC) and LC scores and a negative corre1ation near zero for the VDL scores. The simp1e-corre1ation coefficient between ANGLE and CUES (r = .0063; p = .475) and subjects' eva1uation of seat angTe (SELF-LOCATION) (r = .0339; p = .354) indicated a 1ow and positive corre1ation. which was not significant at the a1pha==.05 1eve1. This coefficient a1so 106 seemed to indicate that the seat's ang1e (sma11er or 1arger) from the screen's centra1 focus did not affect students' perception of informa- tion. in terms of visua1 discrimination 1earning or iistening compre- hension. when viewing an instructiona1 fi1m in this narrow c1assroom environment. The simp1e—corre1ation coefficient between ANGLE and SELF- DISTANCE (r = -.0941; p = .149). PRE-TEST (r = -.0085; p = .463). COURSES TAKEN (r = -.0423; p = .321). and LEFTSIDE (r = -.1357; p = .066) indicated a 10w and negative corre1ation. which was not signifi- cant at the a1pha = .051eve1. Hypothesis 3 predicted that students who received cues before viewing an instructiona1 fi1m wou1d perceive more information than those who received no cues. 'The resu1ts demonstrated that the hypothesis was supported on1y for Action Region II. In other words. cues did have a statistica11y significant effect on students' perception of information for TOTAL (VDL+LC). LC. and VDL scores. at the .05 1eve1. as fo11ows: .00330. .0186. and .0065. respective1y. It was conc1uded that. for students in both front and rear regions. being given cues did not have a statistica11y significant effect on their perception of information--TOTAL (VDL+LC). LC. or VDL scores-~at the .05 1eve1 of significance. However. when Hypothesis 3 was tested for CUES and NO'CUES for the whoTe group. it was found that the effect of cues on students' post-test performance was not significant at the a1pha==.05 1eve1. From the resu1ts. it was conc1uded that giving cues did not have a 107 significant effect on students"tota1 perceived information. visua1 discrimination 1earning. or 1istening comprehension. The interaction effect was ana1yzed between region (Nonaction and Action) and cues given to students before they viewed a fi1m in c1ass. The resu1ts revea1ed that. for TOTAL (VDL+LC) and VDL scores. there was a significant interaction effect at the a1pha==.05 1eve1; no such interaction effect existed for LC scores. Because of students' previous experience in human bio1ogy courses (See Tab1e Ar3. Appendix A). it seems that the treatment--being given CUES before viewing a fi1m--did not have the expected effect on studentsfl‘totai perceived information--TOTAL (VDL+LC). visua1 discrimi- nation 1earning (VDL). or 1istening comprehension (LC) on the perform- ance test. Summarx In this chapter the statistica1 findings of the study were presented and ana1yzed. Mu1tip1e-regression and ana1ysis of variance techniques were used to ana1yze the data c011ected in the study. The .05 1eve1 of significance was estab1ished as the basis on which to accept or reject the hypotheses. The hypotheses were tested separate1y for TOTAL (VDL+LC) perception of information. for 1istening comprehen- sion (LC). and for visua1 discrimination 1earning (VDL). The resu1ts demonstrated that distance and angie predictors did not have a statistica11y significant effect on the dependent variab1es. However. for Action Region II in Hypothesis 3. giving cues before 108 showing a fi1m did have a statistica11y significant effect in each of the subhypotheses--that is. concerning TOTAL (VDL+LC). LC. and VDL scores. The inc1usion of the predictors (see Tab1e 6) in Hypotheses 1 and 2 did have a statistica11y significant effect for TOTAL (VDL+LC) and LC scores. but not for VDL scores. A summary of the study. findings. conc1usions. and recommenda- tions are found in Chapter V. CHAPTER V SUMMARY. FINDINGS. CONCLUSIONS. AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summau The study was an investigation of the effects of seating distance and ang1e degree from the screenhs centra1 focus. and of cues given before showing an instructiona1 fi1nu The three dependent variab1es--perception of information (VDL+LC). 1istening comprehension (LC). and visua1 discrimination 1earning (VDL) were considered impor- tant factors in using a sound-motion instructiona1 fiTm in the c1ass- room. No previous study attempting to re1ate distance. ang1e. and cues to students' perception of information presented by a fi1m has been conducted in a c1assroom setting. Few studies on distance and ang1e have been done by using instructiona1 te1evision or on cues given by using instructiona1 fi1m. For this reason. the present researcher attempted to ana1yze the effects of students' seating distance. angie. and being given cues before viewing a fi1m. It was postu1ated that some measurab1e effects of distance and ang1e from the screen's centra1 focus might affect students! perception of information in terms of visua1 discrimination 1earning and 1istening comprehension. The subjects were 124 co11ege students enro11ed in a fami1y chi1d eco1ogy c1ass at Michigan State University. A11 subjects responded to both instruments during a predetermined time for each 109 110 test. ‘The subjects were assured by the researcher that the information obtained wou1d be strictTy confidentia1. The Inventory Test was admin- istered before showing the fi1m; it was aiso used as a pretest. ‘The Performance Test was divided into two parts (a mu1tip1e-choice test and open questions) and was administered after students viewed the fi1m. After the data were co1Tected and tabu1ated. the resu1ts were ana1yzed by mu1tip1e regression and ana1ysis of variance (ANOVA). The statistica1 ana1yses of the data revea1ed the fo11owing: Hypothesis 1 was not supported. 'There were no statistica11y significant effects on perception of information. in terms of visua1 discrimination 1earning and 1istening comprehension. accounted for by distance. as indicated by the F-test. Hypothesis 2 was not supported. ‘There were no statistica11y significant effects on perception of information. in terms of visua1 discrimination 1earning and 1istening comprehension. accounted for by ang1e. as indicated by the F-test. Hypothesis 3 was not supported for Front Region I or for Rear Region 111. There were no statistica11y significant effects on perception of information. in terms of visua1 discrimination 1earning and 1istening comprehension. accounted for by cues given. as indicated by the F-test in ANOVA. Hypothesis 3 was supported for Action Region II. There were statistica11y significant effects on perception of information. in terms of visua1 discrimination 1earning and iistening comprehension. 111 accounted for by cues given before viewing a fi1m. as indicated by the F-test in ANOVA. Hypothesis 3 was not supported for the whoie group. There were no statistica11y significant effects on perception of information. in terms of visua1 discrimination 1earning and 1istening comprehension. accounted for by cues given before viewing a fi1m. as indicated by the F-test in ANOVA. Engines 1. CoTiege students! perception of information. in terms of visua1 discrimination 1earning and 1istening comprehension. was not significant1y affected by their seating distance from the screenus centra1 focus in front of the room. 2. C011ege students' 1istening comprehension was not significant1y affected by their seating distance from the screenks centra1 focus in front of the room. 3. Coi1ege students'ivisua1 discrimination Tearning was not significant1y affected by their seating distance from the screenks centra1 focus in front of the roan. 4. Co11ege students' perception of information. in terms of visua1 discrimination 1earning and 1istening comprehension. was not significant1y affected by their seat's ang1e from the screen's centra1 focus in front of the room. 5. Co11ege students' 1istening comprehension was not signifi- cant1y affected by their seat's angie from the screen's centra1 focus in front of the room. 112 6. Co11ege students"visua1 discrimination 1earning was not significant1y affected by their seat's ang1e from the screen's centra1 focus in front of the room. 7. Front Region I and Rear Region III co11ege students' perception of information. in terms of visua1 discrimination 1earning and 1istening comprehension. was not significant1y affected by receiving cues before viewing a fi1m. 8. Front Region I and Rear Region III co11ege students' 1istening comprehension was not significant1y affected by receiving cues before viewing a fi1m. 9. Front Region I and Rear Region III co11ege students"visua1 discrimination 1earning was not significant1y affected by receiving cues before viewing a fi1m. 10. Action Region II co11ege students' perception of informa- tion. in terms of visua1 discrimination 1earning and 1istening compre- hension. was significant1y affected by receiving cues before viewing a fi1m. 11. Action Region II co11ege students'1istening comprehension was significant1y affected by receiving cues before viewing a fi1m. 12. Action Region II co11ege students"visua1 discrimination 1earning was significant1y affected by receiving cues before viewing a fi1m. 13. Co11ege students' perception of information. in terms of visua1 discrimination 1earning and Tistening comprehension. was not significant1y affected by receiving cues before viewing a fi1m. 113 14. C1assroom region did matter when students received cues before viewing a fi1m in the c1assroom. 9.909.135.1205 Based on the findings of this study. the fo11owing conc1usions were drawn: 1. Seating distance and seat's angie from the screen's centra1 focus in front of a straight-row c1assroom arrangement in a narrow room did not produce statistica11y significant effects on students' percep- tion. in terms of visua1 discrimination 1earning and 1istening compre- hension. 2. Giving cues before viewing a fi1m in a narrow c1assroom did produce statistica11y significant effects on Action Region II students' perception of information. in terms of visua1 discrimination iearning and 1istening comprehension. 3. Giving cues before viewing a fi1m in a narrow c1assroom setting did not produce statistica11y significant effects on Front Region I or Rear Region III students' perception of information. in terms of visua1 discrimination 1earning and Tistening comprehension. 4. Giving cues before viewing a fi1m in a narrow c1assroom setting did not produce statistica11y significant effects on co11ege students' perception of information. in terms of visua1 discrimination 1earning and Tistening comprehension. 114 Becemmendaflms In view of the findings of the present investigation. the fo11owing recommendations are made for future research: 1. In an effort to measure the effects of distance and ang1e of seats for viewing an instructiona1 fiTm and other types of audio- visua1 resources in a1c1assroom. it is recommended that more concrete variab1es be used as indices of students! perception of information. in terms of visua1 discrimination 1earning and Tistening comprehension. 2. For maximum effect of distance and ang1e of seats in a straight-row c1assroom arrangement. it is recommended that wider and more square environmenta1 settings be used. instead of narrow rooms. 3. For maximum effect in a straight-row c1assroom arrangement. identified by regions. it is recommended that more concrete variab1es be used as indices of students' perception of information. in terms of visua1 discrimination 1earning and 1istening comprehension. 4. Forinaximum effect of cues in a straight-row c1assroom arrangement. as a whoie and/or identified by regions. it is recommended that more concrete variab1es be used as indices of students' perception of information. in terms of visua1 discrimination 1earning and 1isten- ing comprehension. 5. Further research on perception of information shou1d be undertaken in terms of visua1 discrimination 1earning and 1istening comprehension (which is affected by seat's distance and angie) and being given cues when using different audiovisua1 instructiona1 resources in the c1assroom. 115 6. It is recommended that more sophisticated and better sca1 es be deve1oped to investigate distance. ang1e. and cue effects on stu- dents! perception of information. primari1y in terms of visua1 dis- crimination 1earning in a c1assroom situation. 7. Further research shou1d be conducted on students' eva1ua- tion of seating distance and seat's ang1e from the screen's centra1 focus in front of the room. for viewing projected visua1s. APPENDICES 116 APPENDIX A TABLES 117 118 Table A-l.--Systematic numerical order of the numbered seats randomly assigned previously. Order Seat Order Seat Order Seat Order Seat # # # # # # # # 001 001 026 056 051 028 076 086 002 100 027 039 052 073 077 038 003 018 028 062 053 005 078 063 009 083 029 027 059 096 079 012 005 019 030 079 055 029 080 089 006 082 031 016 056 072 081 098 007 039 032 085 057 022 082 053 008 067 033 097 058 079 083 006 009 035 039 059 059 010 089 095 010 066 035 007 060 091 085 033 01 1 050 036 099 061 037 086 068 012 051 037 025 062 069 087 026 013 002 038 076 063 023 088 075 019 099 039 013 069 078 089 019 015 099 090 088 065 091 090 087 016 052 091 031 066 060 091 021 017 003 092 070 067 036 092 080 018 098 093 096 068 065 093 029 019 017 099 055 069 009 099 077 020 089 095 008 070 097 095 092 021 009 096 093 071 030 096 059 022 092 097 032 072 071 097 090 023 093 098 069 073 011 098 061 029 058 099 020 079 090 099 099 025 095 050 081 075 015 100 057 119 Table A-2.--Demographic data frequency. Pilot Study Experimenta1 Variable A B 8 Exp. 1 2 Sample size 19 21 13 129 College Educational Level Mean score 3.357 9.286 5.000 2.573 Standard deviation 1.997 2.513 1.633 .899 Standard error .387 .598 .953 .080 Frequencies Sophomore ... .... .... 57 Junior 1 ... ... 50 Senior 11 1 1 12 MS/MA candidate ... 9 5 ... Ph.D. candidate ... ll 6 ... No information 2 1 9 Sex Mean score 1.219 1.571 1.615 1.016 Standard deviation .926 .507 .506 .126 Standard error .119 .111 .190 .011 Frequencies Fema1e 11 9 5 122 Male 12 8 2 Ethnic Group Mean score 1.219 1.762 3.692 1.292 Standard deviation .802 1.179 2.057 .810 Standard error .219 .257 .570 .073 Frequencies Caucasian 13 19 3 108 BlaCk ... ... I 7 Spanish ... 6 3 9 Indian (native USA) 1 ... ... ... Orienta1 ... 1 2 9 Other (Middle East) ... ... 9 ... No information ... ... ... 1 Age Mean score 25.357 39.929 32.533 21.323 Standard deviation 6.690 6.597 5.125 5.092 Standard error 1.775 1.929 1.922 .957 120 Table A-2.--Continued. Pilot Study Experimental Variable Age (cont'd.) Frequencies 18-20 21-23 29-26 27-29 30-32 33'35 36-38 39-91 92-99 15-17 98-50 Physical Condition Vision Mean score Standard deviation Standard error Frequencies Normal vision Corrected vision Hearing Mean score Standard deviation Standard error Frequencies Normal hearing Corrected hearing Writing Mean score Standard deviation Standard error Frequencies Left-handed Right-handed A -‘--N \IN 1.693 I 1‘97 .133 mm 1.071 .267 .071 B1 ---—-w—-Noow—- 1.976 .512 .112 11 10 1.000 21 1.905 .301 .066 narrow—- ‘ 1.962 .519 .199 13 1.923 .277 0077 Exp. d .952 0500 .095 68 56 1.000 129 1.895 .308 .028 121 Table A-3.--Score distribution on pretest. Pilot Study Experimental Variab1e A B] 82 Exp. Sample size 19 21 13 129 Background in Human Biology Courses taken in H.B. Mean score 1.000 1.381 .615 2.927 Standard deviation 1.177 1.569 1.193 1.308 Standard error .319 .391 .331 .117 Frequencies Didn't take any course 7 10 9 6 One course 2 2 2 31 Two courses 3 3 1 31 Three courses 2 3 ... 17 Four or more courses ... 3 1 33 Human biology terminology Mean score 5.193 5.857 9.000 8.331 Standard deviation 2.316 2.651 3.697 2.556 Standard error .619 .579 1.025 .230 Frequencies One ... 1 1 ... Two 2 ... ... 1 Three ... 2 l 3 Four 5 2 2 13 Five 2 1 ... 7 Six 2 5 1 6 Seven 1 9 l 12 Eight 2 1 9 Nine 1 1 21 Ten 1 2 1 18 Eleven ... ... ... 39 122 cu. m. .N :— 0N_N o.eEem NNN. :. NN NN NNN. N N N .NN. e N a. NNN. N N N coouocomc. cot. uuc..._o oc.ouux NNN. e. NN NN NNN. N N N o.N. N N N .NN.. e N N co..uo u>.ecuooec. cc. N..oc Nc.o.o>< N.N. N NN NN sN.. . o N. oN.. . N N. NNa. o N N coeuocomc. No ou..eu me... .o o.e.N< oNN. N N. NN NNN. . N o. oN.. . N N. NNN. o a o. coo. uc. No u.ce.e c. Nou.xco .uu. NNN. NN NN NN NNN. .. .. N E... N N N. NNN.. N N N ......o £3823... o. NNN. N NN NN NN.. o N .. oN.. o s N. N... o N N. uco.. uo o. u... NNN. NN o: .N N.N. N s N NNN. N N o. .NN.. N N e co.ocuooc ...oNNuNoco u>.uuuc o» NN... .N .N N. NNN. N N N NoN. N N N NNN.. N N N coouecomc. No.3 oueocou uNN oueem .ecONLoe NNN.. NN NN NN NNN. N N . NNN. N N N NNN.. o. . N ....u c. co.o..oo ...... one. a... NNN. NN NN NN NNN. . N N NNN. N N o. NNN. N N N ..u. one. u... .NeN .co.euc .e.uuo. oz NNN. N. NN NN .N.. o N .. oN.. o N N. NsN. N N N :oeo.: on. No uo o. u... NNN. N oN NN NNN. o N N NNN. N . N. NNN. o N N coon use N. on o. «9.. BOOK 0.: c. 30.0000; unuw N.N.. oN oN .. NNN.. N a . .NN.. a. . N ooN.. N N N .uoouo tau; cc. uu. coo NNN. N. NN NN N.N. N N N NNN. N N N. NaN. N Neu.ooco .oe..> NoN. .. N. NN NNN. N N N NNN. N N a. NNN. N . .. .ouucue Ncoo.oo< co.o.ecou ..u..>c. NoN. N. N. .N NNN. N N N NNN. N N N. NNN. o N N ....u c. ..uo. o. u... o.coo NNN. NN .N NN ooo.. N N N NNN.. N N N «.N.. N N N soo.....u c. uoeo.u.eceo o. u... 3N... .N NN .N .NN.. N a N NNN.. N a N NNN.. N N N c....2 ouuNNo. c. oeucuoc. use: N.N. . N. .o. NNN. N . o. NNN. . o oN NNN. . N o. ocuecou as. c. ..ucuoc. oc o>oz meaneoc 0.50ueu< coo: N . o ceu: N . o ceuz N . o coo: N . o enacu .oucoe_.oexm No NoNOum w a enacu mo mucoum .9 Quote mo mucoum < Quota mo mucoum >caum uo__e o.no..o> .moucocomoce me.uoon .oe0ncoe New anemone .muconaumii.ai< o_no» 123 Table A-5.'-Means and standard deviations of variables used in this study. Variab1e Mean 5.0. TOTAL (VDL + 1.0)8 35.6613 5.9098 v01.b 12.5565 2.2786 Lcc 23.1098 3.8251 Angle 66.2097 16.9071 Cues (No Cues) .9839 .5018 Pretest 8.3306 2.5558 Self-location .5806 .9955 Normal Vision .5989 .9997 Left Side .5161 .5018 Right Side .9839 . .5018 Courses Taken .9935 .9988 Distance 25.2661 9.9332 Self-distance .6613 .9752 aPerception of information (VDL + LC). bVisual discrimination 1earning. cListening comprehension. 129 Table A-6.--Frequency distribution of seating distance from the screen's central focus. Relative Adjusted Cumulative Code EEEZLEEEy Frequency Frequency Frequency (8) (z) (z) 5 1 .8 .8 .8 7 2 1.6 1.6 2.9 8 3 2.9 2.9 9.8 10 3 2.9 2.9 7.3 12 5 9.0 9.0 11.3 13 9 3.2 3.2 19.5 15 5 9.0 9.0 18.5 17 9 7.3 7.3 25.8 18 7 5.6 5.6 31.5 20 9 7.3 7.3 38.7 22 9 3.2 3.2 91.9 23 8 6.5 6.5 98.9 25 6 9.8 9.8 53.2 27 5 9.0 9.0 57.3 28 6 9.8 9.8 62.1 30 6 9.8 9.8 66.9 32 7 5.6 5.6 72.6 33 3 2.9 2.9 75.0 35 8 6.5 6.5 81.5 37 6 9.8 9.8 86.3 38 5 9.0 9.0 90.3 90 6 9.8 9.8 95.2 92 9 3.2 3.2 98.9 93 2 1.6 1.6 100.0 Total 129 100.0 100.0 125 Table A-7.--Frequency distribution of seat's angle from the screen's central focus in the experimental setting. Relative Adjusted Cumulative Code :bsolute Frequency Frequency Frequency req”°"cy (z) (8) (z) 19 1 .8 .8 .8 22 1 .8 .8 1.6 27 l .8 .8 2.9 30 1 .8 .8 3.2 32 1 .8 .8 9.0 33 1 .8 .8 9.8 39 1 .8 .8 5.6 37 3 2.9 2.9 8.1 90 1 .8 .8 8.9 91 1 .8 .8 9.7 92 1 .8 .8 10.5 93 1 .8 .8 11.3 99 1 .8 .8 12.1 95 3 2.9 2.9 19.5 97 l .8 .8 15.3 99 1 .8 .8 16.1 50 1 .8 .8 16.9 51 2 1.6 1.6 18.5 52 1 .8 .8 19.9 53 2 1.6 1.6 21.0 59 1 .8 .8 21.8 55 9 3.2 3.2 25.0 56 2 1.6 1.6 26.6 59 3 2.9 2.9 29.0 60 2 1.6 1.6 30.6 61 3 2.9 2.9 33.1 62 2 1.6 1.6 39.7 63 2 1.6 1.6 36.3 126 Table A-7.--Continued. Absolute Relative Adjusted Cumulative Code Frequency Frequency Frequency Frequency (96) (96) (z) 69 3 2.9 2.9 38.7 65 3 2.9 2.9 91.1 66 3 2.9 2.9 93.5 67 5 9.0 9.0 97.6 68 2 1.6 1.6 99.2 69 2 1.6 1.6 50.8 70 9 3.2 3.2 59.0 71 9 3.2 3.2 57.3 72 1 .8 .8 58.1 73 5 9.0 9.0 62.1 79 3 2.9 2.9 69.5 75 3 2.9 2.9 66.9 76 2 1.6 1.6 68.5 77 3 2.9 2.9 71.0 78 2 1.6 1.6 72.6 79 9 3.2 3.2 75.8 80 3 2.9 2.9 78.2 81 3 2.9 2.9 80.6 82 2 1.6 1.6 82.3 83 9 3.2 3.2 85.5 89 3 2.9 2.9 87.9 85 2 1.6 1.6 89.5 86 5 9.0 9.0 93.5 87 1 .8 .8 99.9 88 3 2.9 2.9 96.8 89 9 3.2 3.2 100.0 Total 129 100.0 100.0 APPENDIX B SCRIPTS 127 128 Script B-2: MUSCLE Nansen]: We take the simple process of writing pretty much for granted. In fact. itfls not simple at all. This very precise action requires the intricate coordination of thousands upon thousands of separate muscular movements involving some dozens of muscles. millions of the specialized cells that compose them. and billions of the molecules that function within and around the cells. The unique processes of muscular movement have intrigued man for centuries. With our advancing technology. we are beginning to understand and simulate man's muscle systems in the laboratory. 1.333111.ch The remote manipulator is an electro-mechanical device used to simulate the human hand. wrist. and arm without an elbow joint. The speed of the remote manipulator is limited in various ways. primarily in that you can make one motion at a time and that very deliberately. whereas the human hand does many motions at one time and does them mechanically. You first have to realize that we are only simulating the thumb and forefinger and that primary limitation in the remote manipulator is that it does not have any sense of feeling. You lose that sense and you have to compensate by using your vision. Itfls a remarkable machine--it will do remarkable things. but the wonderful complication of the human arm is something we just can’t replace. 129 Handler: Man. like other animals. lacks the ability to manufacture his own food. He must depend upon the environment to get his nourishment. Man not only moves through the environment for his food. he also controls his muscles to move objects and to shape the environment to fit his needs. ‘The primary tissues of the body that are responsible for move- ment are muscles. Muscles are groupings of specialized cells that act in response to a stimulus. Muscular movement is always generated by a contraction. a shortening and thickening. No one type of muscle can by itself supply the movement we need to function adequately. ‘The variety is made possible by the over 600 different muscles in our bodies in combination. In the human body. as well as other vertebrates. there are three different types of muscles: the first is striated muscle which gives us the movement whereby we protect ourselves. reproduce and move through the environment to gather food. The second type is smooth muscle. While it also plays a role in reproduction. the greater part of its activity is involved with the mechanics of digesting food. Cardiac muscle. the third type. found only in the heart. pumps blood to all parts of the body. In so doing. it supplies the other two muscular systems. the rest of the body. and itself with the oxygen needed for the production of energy and the removal of waste substances. Smooth muscle makes up most of the digestive tract. the swallowing mechanism. the esophagus. the stomach. intestines. the bladder. arter- ies. veins. and the uterus in women. Smooth muscles are involuntary. meaning that we normally don’ticonsciously control them. It is 130 fortunate that they are involuntary. If they weren’t. for instance. digesting our food would probably require our full and undivided atten- tion. The smooth muscles are controlled by the autonomic nervous system. Nerve impulses originate in the control centers of the brain or spinal cord. travel down the motor nerve cells to end where the impulses stimulate or enervate muscle. ‘The smooth muscles receive two different kinds of impulses. one that stimulates the muscles to contract and a second that relaxes them. Smooth muscles characteristically contract slowly. Cardiac muscle combines characteristics of both smooth and striated musc1es. Outwardly the cells of cardiac muscle look much like striated muscle cells but as with smooth muscle. their contraction is involuntary. The cardiac muscle has a unique characteristic. Unlike either smooth or striated muscle. it does not need to be externally innervated by the nervous system to act. It has a self-contained or myogenic origin of contraction. The nerves that innervate the heart do not initiate contraction. they only modify it. The beat of the heart originates in a specialized area of muscle cells called the pacemaker. Its pace is transmitted by electrical couplings to adjacent cells causing them to contract. Cardiac cells contract rhythmically. If a single cell is iso- lated. it will beat or contact by itself. ‘The contact of the two cardiac cells together gives rise to a coupling. with the fastest cell governing the rate of both. 131 From the first contraction of the heart in the human embryo. it steadily and automatically contracts more than once per second or over one hundred thousand times a day. every day throughout life. The rate of the heartbeat correlates directly with the activity of the body. The blood vessels in the active muscles of the area expend- ing the energy dilate during activity. In some way. the activity of the muscles causes the heart to contract more rapidly and pump more blood carrying oxygen through the enlarged blood vessels. as well as to the rest of the system. Unlike striated muscles. cardiac muscles don’t fatigue with prolonged high rates of contraction. There is enough time between contractions to allow the cells to eliminate wastes and be resupplied with oxygen. The different muscle systems are highly coordinated. For example. if you run immediately after eating. the nervous system will divert the bulk of the oxygen-carrying blood from the smooth muscles of the digestive system to the higher priority demands of the striated muscles to supply oxygen for fast action. This re-directing of our energies leaves the food undigested in the stomach causing painful cramps. Most muscles in the body are fast-acting striated muscles. These are also referred to as skeletal because they are the muscles that move the skeleton. Tendons attach both ends of the striated muscles to the skeleton. One end of the muscle may be attached at two points--these muscles are bi-headed. 132 Many muscles must act together to perform seemingly simple move— ments. When the biceps contract. the elbow tends to flex. the triceps relax. the forearm rotates into a palm upward position and the upper arm rises away from the side of the chest. When the triceps contract and the biceps relax. the arm moves down. It is the nervous system's high degree of control of a single muscle's contraction coordinated with its control of other muscles that allows us our great variety of movement. The biceps and the triceps in the arm act in opposition. When the biceps contract. the triceps relax and vice versa. This arrangement is antagonistic. Most striated muscles are arranged in antagonistic pairs like this. Muscle only produces force by shortening during contraction. As different muscles contract. their combined individual shortening or pulling movements cause the limbs to move. Muscles only pull in their movement. but can combine their contractions to allow a pushing force. There are two kinds of pulling actions. In isometric contraction. muscles develop tension and exert a force without changing their overall length. In isotonic contractions. muscles do change their length. shorten. and exert a constant force. A person who develops his muscles by exercising does not increase the number of his muscle cells. he only enlarges the size of existing cells. Striated muscles act in highly coordinated ways as when the jaw. tongue. larynx and lips combine their movements to produce sound in the form of speech. 133 Some striated muscles like those of our eyes do not move bone. The muscles of our eyelids facilitate the spreading of lubricants across the surface of the eye to keep it from drying out. These movements are voluntary. but the same muscles also move involuntarily. such as when they protect the eye from foreign objects. The muscles surrounding the ear are apparently vestigial. Once they were more than likely used for directing the ear towards sound. much like the ear muscles of the present-day dog or horse. Our facial muscles allow us a great repertoire of movement. We use the many tiny striated muscles in our face to express emotion. Think of us without this ability. It would be difficult to communicate feelings and express ourselves. We wouldn't be able to do simple things like smile. The striated muscles of the arm are made up of millions upon millions of individual muscle cells. The contraction of the muscle represents the contraction of each of its component cells. It begins when a nerve impulse from the spinal cord or brain. travelling at one hundred to three hundred feet per second. moves down the nerve fiber to the threshold of the cell. There it initiates a complex sequence of changes in the chemical and molecular properties of the cell. The nerve fiber ending is separated from the muscle cell by a small space known as the neuro—muscular junction. Though what happens here is not completely understood. it appears that the nerve impulse reaches the end of the fiber and brings about the release of a chemical called transmitter substance. This transmitter substance travels 139 across the junction to receiving areas on the membrane of the cell called receptor sites. The interaction of the transmitter substance on the receptor sites brings about changes in the membrane's selective permeability. The membrane. which up until now has kept some ions out and allowed others through and into the cell. changes--allowing sodium ions. that have been kept out. to enter. Before the sodium passes through the membrane. the cell is nega- tively charged on the inside in relation to the outside. This relative difference is the cell's membrane potential. The sodium. which is positively charged. changes the membrane potential as it flows into the cell. thus increasing the positive charge inside the cell. Positively charged potassium. which has been kept in the cell. starts to flow out. beginning to restore the cefll's original potential. but cannot do so as so much sodium is flowing in. A mechanism not yet understood stops the sodium from flowing in and the outflowing potassium restores most of the cell's original potential. But some sodium remains in the cell. This is removed by a mechanism known as the sodium pump. which activates and pumps the sodium back out of the cell. finally restoring the cell's original membrane potential. The momentary change in the cell's potential communicates the impulse from the neuro—muscular junction. along the membrane. down the tubules. to the sarcomplasmic reticulum inside the cell where calcium is stored. 135 At this point calcium is released. When released. calcium is thought to inhibit the actions of two proteins in the cell. tropomyosin and troponin. This inhibiting effect allows two protein chains. or myofilaments. actin and myosin. to interact. The interaction. or sliding movement. of the actin and myosin molecules past each other is the contractile mechanism of the striated muscle cell. It is here at the molecular level that the actual movement of contraction begins. Research to date indicates that myosin has lateral projections. or cross bridges. which attach to receptor sites on the actin. It is the calciunfls inhibition of tropomyosin and troponin which frees the receptor sites to interact. When the myosin attaches to the actin. a high energy molecule. ATP. is broken down. or split. and energy is released. It is speculated that the energy released by the splitting of the ATP molecule produces the force that lengthens the myosin cross bridges that move the actin. Energy is used in lesser amounts when the actin/myosin bond is broken. The myosin molecules then shorten and reattach themselves to a new receptor site and repeat the process. The muscle relaxes when the membrane's original potential is restored and calcium is re-absorbed. The whole process. from the nerve impulse's arrival at the neuro- muscular junction to the sliding of the filaments takes approximately 1/40th of a second. .A single movement of one of the cross-bridges has a relatively insignificant effect on the movement of the whole muscle. 136 But each impulse from the nervous system produces a number of movements of the cross-bridges. And when you consider further that there are about 500 myosin and 900 actin myofilaments in a sarcomere. and 5.000 sarcomeres in a myofibril. and that in a muscle cell or fiber one centimeter long and ten thousandth of a centimeter in diameter there are 8.000 myofibrils. that means that in a single muscle cell there is a total of 56 billion myofilaments. The single unit of contraction is called a motor unit. It is made up of the motor nerve and the muscle fibers it innervates. It is the number of motor units activated that determines the strength of movement. It is only when we realize that all of these molecular interac- tions within one cell make up a single contraction that we can under- stand how remarkable the contraction process really is. As man has increased the body of knowledge concerning the workings of muscles. it has become possible to introduce sophisticated methods of analysis and treatment of diseases involving the muscle systems. Research is currently underway at the University of Colorado which demonstrates that people can be trained to control muscles to relieve such disorders as muscle tension headaches. 120.919.11.21 Tension headaches. also known as muscle contraction headaches. are perhaps the commonest. or psychosomatic or stress related disorder. We expect there are probably several million people around with tension headaches. Its cause. at least its immediate cause. is rather clear. 137 rather straightforward. Itfls caused by sustained contraction of the muscles in the head and neck. Our objective was to take people suffering from tension headache and train them to relax the muscles involved. The way we did this was to use the EMG. or electrode miographic feedback. W The EMG is the electro myogram and it is the electrical signal generated by muscle tissues. specifically the bio potentials which are generated by the cell membranes as they depolarize when energized by the motor neuron. And. of course. as the motor neuron energizes the muscle thousands of cell membranes depolarize simultaneously and these bio-electric signals are more or less summated and can be picked up on the surface of the skin by surface electrodes. .And we amplify these tiny bio-electric signals on the surface. 00.1mm The patient would come into the laboratory. he would lie down on the cot. we would fasten electrodes to his forehead. then he would receive feedback of what his forehead. or frontels muscle was doing. 00:10:42 There are two types of auditory displays and we use one type of visual display. We can use them in combination or separately. As far as the electrode displays are concerned. there is a tone which varies in frequency. When the person's attention level is high. the tone is 138 at a high pitch. As he begins to lower his attention. the tone tracks it down. it lowers its pitch. or frequency. The other type of auditory feedback is kind of a geiger counter sound. a click type sound. the higher the muscle tension. the faster the click rate is. As people relax the click rate becomes slower and slower. 0051M We also have a visual feedback display and in this case the subject sees a panel in front of him and when the subject is rather tense and the particular muscle he will see a red spot of light on that visual indicator. when he is beginning to relax he will see an amber color. and as he becomes quite relaxed he will see green on the visual indicator. mm Muscle feedback therapy involves the electronic detection and translation into audio-visua1 signals of great numbers of momentary changes in the effective muscle cells' membrane potentials. The microsecond of depolarization represents one in an intricate series of almost simultaneous biochemical steps whereby a nerve impulse from the central nervous system ultimately initiates the sliding past each other of billions of the active myofilaments actin and myocin within each cell. drawing its perimeters inward. The resulting shortening and thickening of the cell is in the aggregate the seemingly simple act of muscular contraction. 139 Script B-1: SCRIPT FOR THE PRE-RECORDED INSTRUCTIONS Time 4 min 35 sec 1 min 40 sec 1 min 8 sec 15 sec Description Overture music--"Warsaw Concerto"--The Best of the Classics--Liberace. (The experimenter will check the subject's envelope to white-card seat's number. according to the floor plan.) You have received the sealed envelope which contains the two instruments to be used in this experiment. Both instruments are also sealed. The Inventory Test is printed on colored paper and its seal is yellow. The Performance Test is on white paper. and its seal is red. The Inventory Test was designed to elicit a limited amount of demographic data important to the experiment. ‘The personal information being asked will be kept confidential. but do not sign your name on the test. While you are completing the Inventory Test. you will hear very soft music. When the period of 15 minutes is over. you will hear instructions to stop writing the Inventory Test and to put it back in the envelope. ‘Then. you will receive instructions concerning the second instru- ment. the Performance Test. Please do not talk to each other or ask questions during the entire period of the experiment. Now you can break the blue seal to open the envelope and to pick only. I repeat. only the colored test. Keep the envelope in your lap. You will have one minute to read the instructions on the Inventory Test. I will tell you when to break the yellow seal of this test. (Let tape run for one minute--no music background.) You will have 15 minutes to complete this test. Now you can break the yellow seal of the Inventory Test. Music background--Miniatures for Guitar (Side 0ne)—- Liona Boyd. Sgan1§h_BQmange (traditional). .Adelita (Francisco Tarrega). ‘Ca111a_de_lusiga (Francisco 2 min 3 min 30 min 8 sec 15 min 8 sec 190 Tarrega). .Lngnimg (Gramcisco Tarrega). .Andanting (Mateo Carcassi). .Andante (Fernando Sor1-1E5tudig_£2 (Fernando Sor). .Eaxang (Francisco Tarrega). The time is over. Put the colored test back in the envelope and pick the white test. First. you will see the film. ‘Then. I will tell you when to break the red seal of this test. The Performance Test is divided into two parts. 'You are expected to complete the first part in 15 minutes. and the second one in 20 minutes. I will tell you when the time for each part is oven. Once you have finished both parts of the test. please put it back in the envelope. Give the envelope to the experimenter. who will be at the desk at the "exit" of this room. She will check both instruments inside the envelope. Because of this. you are expected to approach the desk one by one. You will have three minutes to read the instructions on the Performance Test. Do not take any notes. Music background: Miniature for Guitar--Lyona Boyd. .Gngenslggxgs (Traditional). (Turn off the lights of the room and project the film MUSCLE.) (Projection of the film MUSCLE.) (Turn on the lights of the room.) Now you can break the red seal of the Performance Test. You will have 15 minutes to complete the first part of the test. I will tell you when the time is over. Music background: Miniature for Guitar (Side Two)-- Liona Boyd. ,Little_§u11e (a) Balletto. (b) Police- nello. (c) Minuetto. (d) Sarabanda. (e) Gavoette (A. Logy). 5.012113 (L. Roncalli). Baum (L. Milan). ELEJMIQ and $131.13 (Robert de Visee). W (D. Aguado). W (Francisco, Tarrega). The ti me is over. You are expected to complete the second part of this test in 20 minutes. I will tell you when the time is over. 20 min 10 sec 4 min 18 sec 191 Music background: Miniature for Guitar (Side One)-- Liona Boyd. ‘§ggn1§h_BQm§nce (traditional). .Adelltg (Francisco Tarrega). .Ca111a_de_My§1cn (Francisco Tarrega). .Lagnimn (Grancisco Tarrega). .Andanting (Mateo Carcassi). .Andante (Fernando SorL .E51u119_£2 (Fernando Sor). ,Eaxnnn (Francisco Tarrega). .Andante (Francisco Tarrega). Lenin (Fran- cisco Tarrega). Wane. 509905199195 (Traditional). The time is oven. Put the Performance Test back in the envelope. You are expected to approach the desk one by one. The envelope must be checked by the experimenter to see if both instruments are inside of it. Please return also the pencil. Then you may leave the room. Thank you for participating in this experiment. Closure music--"Tchaikovsky Piano Concerto Il“—-The Best of the Classics-~Liberace. NOTE: The real time of the experiment is one hour. 37 minutes and 7 seconds (about one hour and 30 minutes). APPENDIX C RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS 192 193 SEAT ROW THE INVENTORY TEST Digecjlgnsz You will have one minute to read the following instructions. You will also be told when to break the seal of this instrument. This test was designed to elicit a limited amount of demo- graphic data important to the experiment. The personal information being asked will be kept confidential. While you are completing this TEST. you will hear soft music. When the period of FIFTEEN minutes to complete this INVENTORY TEST is over. you will HEAR INSTRUCTIONS to stop writing and to put this Test back into the envelope. Then you will receive instructions concerning the second instrument. Please DO NOT TALK to each other or ask questions during the entire period of the experiment. I. V. de Camargo Ph.D. Candidate Summer '84 MSU PLEASE AWAIT INSTRUCTOR'S PRE-RECORDED DIRECTIONS BEFORE BREAKING THE.IELLQH_§EAL OF THIS INSTRUMENT. 199 THE INVENTORY TEST Dear Participant in this Experiment. We assure you that all the personal information given in this instru- ment will be kept confidential. Irfe V. de Camargo Experimenter Summer '84 MSU DIBEQIIQNS: Read carefully the items below and fill out the informa- tion required which best describes your present situation. You will have FIFTEEN minutes to complete it. 01. Write an X in front of the term that describes your college edu- cational level by the end of this Summer term. ( ) a. Freshman ( ) 9. MS candidate ( ) b. Sophomore ( ) f. PhD candidate ( ) c. Junior ( ) 9. Ed Specialist ( ) d. Senior (X) h. PhD candidate* *Example Ol-A. Term first enrolled at MSU________ (term) of l9____. Ol-B. Including Summer '84. I have completed (number of) terms. Ol-C. My graduation is estimated for the (term) of 19___. 02. I am __ years old. 03. Sex: ( ) a. female ( ) b. male 04. Race and/or ethnic origin: a. Caucasian b. Black c. Spanish d. Indian (native) e. Oriental f. Other (specify) AAAAAA vvvvvv O4-A. Nationality (country name) 05. O6. 07. 08. 09. 10. ( ( Have you ever taken any Human Biology course(s)? am have ) b. have ) a. ) b. 195 feet tall. normal vision of: . 20x20 . 20x40 . 20x60 . 20x80 AAAAA vvvvv U‘l-FWN-d . I don't know (don't use glasses or contact lenses) corrected vision (using glasses and/or contact lenses) normal hearing corrected hearing (using hearing devices) write ) a. ) b. ) c. left-handed right-handed with both hands ( ) a. yes ( ) b. no Write the letter X and complete the required information in front of the topics that identify the courses. programs. or units you have already taken in Human Biology. AAAAAAAA a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. vvvvvvvv Human Physiology Skeleton Vertebrate muscles Human blood circulatory system Respiratory system Anatomy Other (specify) term______ tenn____. term_____ term_____. term_____ tenn_____ term_____ term— Mark as many topics as apply. 19___ 19___ 19___ 19___. 19___ 19___. 19___ 19___ 11. -196 In Column I at the left. you read some technical terms related to the Human Biology area of study. which are to be matched to the terms of Column II. at the right. Then. in the space between parentheses. in front of the terms in Column II. 1:113 the letter correspondent of Column 1. COLUMN I COLUMN II (a) muscle* (a) smooth* (b) hand ( ) tibia (c) arm ( ) carpus (d) clavicle ( ) phalanges (e) 1eg ( ) radius (f) foot ( ) carpus ( ) triceps ( ) femur ( ) metatarsus ( ) trapezius ( ) humerus ( ) tarsus *Example 12. Complete the table below with the number and titles of the course(s) you are taking this Spring '84. In the proper column. WRITE the number of the seat you USUALLY PREFER TO SIT IN. in that particular course. in a classroom arrangement as shown in the graph. Item 13 below. COURSE SEAT NUMBER COURSE TITLE CREDIT NUMBER ADV-323* Consumer Behavior* 4 29* EAC-430* Motorcycle Safety* 4 132* *Example 13. 197 Examine carefully the graph below. showing a traditional straight- row seating of a spatial classroom arrangement. numbered from 1 to 150. Then read each question that follows. answering as required. 13-A. Draw a circle around the seat number you USUALLY PREFER TO SIT IN when being exposed to a sound motion instruc- tional film. (front of the room) .1. .32 .29. .52 .22 .22 fl L02 1.22 LL6 1.2]. _2 .2... _3_0 22 57 81 39 L02 12L 122 1.22 _2 .22 .2). .22 _L8 .22 _85_ L0]. L22 132 L22 _2 .22 .22 .2 _22 79 86 106 1_19_ 1.33. Lie _2 A .22 51 50 L8 87 1.25. L12 L12 L12 __6_ .22 .32 .52 61 71 88 L2». L1]. UL 1.92 _2 .22 .22 22 62 26 89 L23. 1L6. L32 m _2 .21. .22 28 62 75 90 I22 1L2 L22 212 _g _29_ 31 97 69 19 91 mi 1_l_ 1;; L9; _12 _I2 .32 22 .62 .22 .22 10_0 u; L27. 2. .LL .2 .22 .92 .92 .72 .22 92_ LL2 L22 1.91 .2. 22 .22 _"_. _62 L .22 92_ LLL as. 198 _I2 22 .12 .23. fi. .22 .25. 9.7_ m. 21. L99. _l_ .12 _9_ _6_2 26_ L23. 1.5.2 (back of the room) 198 14. Based on Questions 12. 13. and 13-A..1L119 the letter X under the value of the value scale. and in front of the statement that best describes your reason(s) for choosing that seat number. that is. the seat you USUALLY PREFER TO SIT IN. in the traditional straight- row (Item 13) classroom arrangement. to attend the courses men- tioned above (Item 12). The values of the scale-va1ue are: 0 = no reason 1 = low reason 2 = strong reason (Mark as many reasons as you want to Justify your seat preference.) SCALE VALUES Reasons for Seat Preference 0 1 2 a. allergic to chalk dust* . . . . x* b. eye-contact with instructor. . . c. keeping distance from instructor d. like to be alone . . . . . . . . e. to interact with others . f. like to be by the door . . g. auditory defects . . . . . h. visual problems . . . . . i. can see and hear better . j. feel anxiety in middle of the room k. like to be by the window . . . . . . . l. avoiding noisy and inattentive persons m. afraid of being called by the instructor n. like to participate in classroom . . . . o. to receive professor's attention . . . . p. have no interest in the content . . . q. have interest in the subject matter . r. do not like to speak in classroom . . 5. no special reason; just like that seat . t. like that seat's position in the classroom u. other (specify) . . . . . . . . . . . . . v. . . w. x. y. z. 0 O O O O C I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C I O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C O *Example 199 SEAT 15. As I have assured you. all the information given will be kept confidential. Will you authorize me to ask the Registrar's Office for your scores on the GRE or Miller Test or other. and GPA? Scores: (a) GRE (b) Miller Test (c) Other (specify) (d) GPA In order for the Registrar's Office to release the above scores. your signature is required. as well as your student number. To protect your anonymity. you are asked to sign your name below. where it can be removed physically before returning this page with your seat number and scores. Thank you. Irfe V. de Camargo Experimenter Spring '84 Student Number Signature 150 THE PERFORMANCE TEST Directions I You will have three minutes to read CAREFULLY the information below. Then. the lights of the room will be turned off. and the film MUSCLES will be shown. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO TAKE ANY NOTES. The following facts and ideas are the major categories you are to pay attention to. These are given to help you to improve your ability of SEEING and HEARING specific information presented through the sound motion colored instructional film. These are some of the main topics: a. Remote manipulator vs. human being b. Type of muscles in the human body c. Functions of muscles d. Muscle movements 6. Muscle contraction and relaxation f. Chemical functions and direction of their effects on muscle movements 9. Use of color in training muscle contraction-relaxing h. Proteins: myosin. troponin. tropomyosin i. Function of nerve on muscle movements j. Use of this knowledge by the medical doctors k. Muscle movements interpreted in drawings shown on the film .Aiten_&eeing_thfi_iilm. you will hear instructions to BREAK THE RED SEAL of this instrument. While writing this test. you will hear very soft music. You will have 35 minutes to complete both parts of the test. You are expected to answer Part I in 15 minutes. when you will HEAR instructions to stop writing it and to start completing Part II. You will have 20 minutes to answer Part II. Once you have completed the test. place it back in the envelope. .H311 to return the envelope and pencil to the person at the desk at the EXIT of the room. one by one. when it will be checked. Be sure to have both instruments in the envelope (Inventory and Performance Tests) and the pencil when returning them. BE SURE ALSO TO ANSWER BOTH PARTS OF THIS TEST. Thank you. Irfe V. de Camargo Experimenter ESD-CEP College of Education Summer '84 MSU 151 THE PERFORMANCE TEST Directions 11 You will have three minutes to read CAREFULLY the information below. Then. the lights of the room will be turned off. and a sound motion instructiona1 film will be shown. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO TAKE ANY NOTES. The following facts and ideas are to be helpful to you: a. Learn the right knowledge because it is a necessary tool for your entire life. b. Use the accumulated knowledge of the past. c. Move forward in spite of uncertainty. d. Recognize new alternatives. 6. Apply harmony and creativity as a unit. f. Interact between and among things. you and other persons. 9. Harmony is a part of the flow of life. h. Creativity. i. Harmony. j. Color and movement. k. Light and shades. .AIIEL.§§§1DQ_Ih§_Iilm. you will hear instructions to BREAK THE RED SEAL of this instrument. While writing this test. you will hear very soft music. You will have 35 minutes to complete both parts of the test. You are expected to answer Part I in 15 minutes. when you will HEAR instructions to stop writing it and to start completing Part II. You will have 20 minutes to answer Part II. Once you have completed the test. place it back in the envelope. .3311 to return the envelope and pencil to the person at the desk at the EXIT of the room. one by one. when it will be checked. ' Be sure to have both instruments in the envelope (Inventory and Performance Tests) and the pencil when returning them. BE SURE ALSO TO ANSWER BOTH PARTS OF THIS TEST. Thank you. Irfe V. de Camargo Experimenter ESD-CEP College of Education Summer '84 MSU 152 THE PERFORMANCE TEST Part I DIBEQIIQNS: .8220 each item carefully. but do not spend too much time on any one item. Write the letter X in front of the correct response that best completes the statement. You will have FIFTEEN minutes to complete it. Example* - 00 - Smooth muscles are 01. 02. 03. 04. 05. (X) a. involuntary ( ) b. voluntary ( ) c. "a" and b" The writing process requires coordination of a. less than twelve muscles b. twelve muscles c. more than twelve muscles AAA VVV The remote manipulator is an electro-mechanical device used to stimulate the human ) a. hand. and arm without an elbow joint ) b. hand. wrist. and arm without an elbow joint ) c. hand. wrist. and arm with an elbow joint “AA The primary limitation in the remote manipulator is that a. it can make one deliberate motion each time b. it has no feeling sense c. "a" and "b" vvv The primary tissues of the human body that are responsible for movement are a. the bone tissues b. the muscle tissues c. the nerve tissues AAA vvv The number of types of muscles is a. four b. three c. two AAA VVV 06. 07. 08. 09. 10. 11. 12. 153 Muscular movement is ( ) a. alnnys generated by a contraction. a shortening and thickening ( ) b. 59m§1Lm§5 generated by a contraction. a shortening and thickening ( ) c. 091 generated by a contraction. a shortening and thickening Which is n91 representative of the smooth muscle type? a. the esophagus. intestines. arteries. veins. and bladder b. the esophagus. intestines. arteries. veins. and heart c. the esophagus. intestines. arteries. veins. and stomach AAA The unique characteristic of the cardiac muscle is ( ) a. that the nerves that innervate the heart do not initiate contraction ( ) b. that it has a self-contained or myogenic origin of con- traction ( ) c. "a" and "b" The striated muscles are attached to the skeleton by a. the nerves that innervate the muscles b. tendons C. "a" and "b" VVV The term "antagonistic pair" means ( ) a. that some muscles act in opposition to each other ( ) b. that most striated muscles are arranged in antagonistic pairs ( ) c. "a" and "b" A person who develops his/her muscles by exercising ( ) a. increases the number of his/her muscle cells ( ) b. enlarges the size of the existing cells ( ) c. "a" and "b" Muscles only produce force by ( ) a. combining flexing movements ( ) b. combining pulling movements ( ) c. shortening during contraction 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 159 In isotonic contractions. ( ) a. muscles develop tension and exert force without changing their overall length ( ) b. muscles do change their length. shorten. and exert a constant force ( ) c. "a" and "b" The production of sound in the form of speech results from the high coordination of movements of the jaw. tongue. larynx and lips. These muscles are classified as: . smooth . striated . "a" and "b" AAA vvv Gun! The muscles of our eyelids facilitate the spreading of lubricants across the surface of the eye to keep it from drying out. These muscles are of type ( ) a. smooth muscles ( ) b. striated muscles ( ) c. "a" and "b" The facial muscles are used to express emotion. These muscles are called . smooth muscles . striated muscles . "a" and "b" AAA vvv 00’!!! The contraction of the striated muscles of the arm represents the contraction ( ) a. of each of its component cells ( ) b. of the forearm and hand ( ) c. of the arm and hand A nerve impulse. from the spinal cord or brain. to move down the nerve fiber to the threshold of the cell. travels at the speed of ( ) a. 300 feet/second ( ) b. 100-300 feet/second ( ) c. 200-300 feet/second 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 155 Neuro-muscular Junction is ( ) a. the nerve fiber ending ( ) b. the innervation of the striated muscles ( ) c. the space that separates the nerve film ending from the muscle cell When the nerve impulse reaches the end of the fiber. it brings about the release of a chemical called ( ) a. sodium ions ( ) b. calcium ions ( ) c. transmitter substance The changes brought about in the membrane's selective permeability result from the interaction of the transmitter substance on the receptor sites. The membrane changes are that of ( ) a. allowing sodium ions to enter the cell ( ) b. allowing sodium ions to be kept out of the cell ( ) c. not allowing other ions into the cell The potential of the cell's membrane is that ( ) a. the cell is positively charged on the inside in relation to the outside ( ) b. the cell is negatively charged on the inside in relation to the outside ( ) c. the cell is not charged. positively or negatively. on the inside in relation to the outside The sodium changes the membrane potential as it flows into the cell. Thus. the sodium is i ) a. negatively charged ( ) b. positively charged ( ) c. not charged. positively or negatively The original potential of the cell begins to be restored by the ( ) a. sodium positively charged ( ) b. calcium positively charged ( ) c. potassium positively charged Which chemical element has to be bagked_gut of the cell in order to restore the cell's original membrane potential? ( ) a. potassium ( ) b. sodium ( ) c. calcium 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 3]. 32. 156 The bagk_gut of the cell mechanism is known as ( ) a. the potassium pump ( ) b. the sodium pump ( ) c. the calcium pump Calcium is stored inside the cell ( ) a. in the neuro-muscular Junction ( ) b. in the sarcomplasmic reticulum ( ) c. in the tubules Tropomyosin and troponin are classified as two types of ( l a. cell's mechanisms ( ) b. proteins ( l c. glucose The actions of tropomyosin and troponin are thought to be inhibited when ( ) a. sodium is released ( ) b. calcium is released ( l c. potassium is released The contractile mechanism of the striated muscle cell occurs when there is interaction of ) a. the actin and myosin molecules past each other ) b. the tropomyosin and troponin molecules past each other ) c. sodium and calcium molecules past each other The actual movement of contraction begins ) a. when changes of the membrane potential are completed ) b. at the molecular level ) c. when sodium is released AAA Which one of the proteins has lateral projections or cross-bridges which attach to receptor sites on the actin? ( l a. troponin ( ) b. tropomyosin ( ) c. myosin 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 157 ATP (adenosine triphosphate) is a high-energy molecule. which is broken a. b. C. AAA down. or split. and energy is released when the myosin attaches to the troponin the myosin attaches to the actin the myosin attaches to the tropomyosin ATP produces the force ( ) a. ( ) b. ( ) c. that lengthens the myosin cross-bridges that move the actin that shortens the myosin cross-bridges that move the actin neither "a" nor "b" When the actin/myosin bond is broken. which molecules are shortened and reattached to a new receptor site? a. b. c. AAA VVV actin myosin "a" and "b" The muscle relaxes when ( ) a. ( ) b. ( ) c. the membrane's original potential is restored and calcium is reabsorbed the membrane's original potential is changed and calcium is released the membrane's original potential is maintained and calcium is absorbed The whole process. from the nerve impulse's arrival at the neuro- muscular Junction to the sliding of the filaments. takes approxi- mately AAA vvv 00'” o l/30th of a second l/40th of a second l/SOth of a second In a single muscle cell there is a total of a. b. AAA vvv 8.000 myofilaments 56 billion myofilaments c. 5.000 myofilaments The single unit of contraction is called (a) a. b. c. AAA VVV sodium pump cross-bridges motor unit 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 158 The strength of movement is determined by a. the amount of sodium pumped out of the cell b. the number of movements of the cross-bridges c. the number of motor units activated VVV The contraction process. then. is the result of a. the molecular interactions within one cell b. the molecular interactions outside the cell c. the molecular interaction within-outside the cell In which University is research being developed in training people to control muscles to relieve such disorders as muscle-tension headaches? ( ) a. University of Dayton ( ) b. University of Colorado ( ) c. University of California Tension headaches are caused by ) a. sustained contraction of the muscles in the neck ) b. sustained contraction of the muscles in the head and shoulders ( l c. sustained contraction of the muscles in the head and neck ( ( The EMG (electro myogram) is a machine used to ( ) a. measure tension headache ( ) b. train people to relax the muscles involved in the tension headache ( ) c. energize the muscle cell A type of EMG (electro myogram) machine generates a series of colored lights giving information on muscle state in patients. 45A. The color the patient will see when he/she begins to relax is ( ) a. green ( ) b. amber ( ) c. red 458. The color the patient will see when he/she becomes tense is ( ) a. green ( ) b. amber ( ) c. red 46. 47. 159 Muscle feedback therapy involves the electronic detection and translation into audio-visual signals of ( ) a. small numbers of momentary changes in the effective muscle cell's membrane potentials ( ) b. 113L192 numbers of momentary changes in the effective muscle cell's membrane potentials ( ) c. great numbers of momentary changes in the effective muscle cell's membrane potentials The simple act of muscular contraction is the result of ( ) a. enlarging and slighting of the cell ( ) b. shortening and thickening of the cell ( ) c. controlling by the autonomic nervous system PLEASE AWAIT INSTRUCTOR'S PRE-RECORDED DIRECTIONS BEFORE STARTING TO WORK ON PART II OF THIS INSTRUMENT .160 Part II .DIBECILQNS: Read each item-question carefully and write the required 48. 49. information in the blank space corresponding to the item. You will have TWENTY minutes to complete PART II of this test. On a scale from 0 to 4. give a grade to your ability to learn the facts and ideas you SAW and HEARD during the presentation of this film. My personal score is as checked below: a. zero b. l c. 2 d. 3 e. 4 f. zero* VVVVVV *Example 0 l 2 3 4 low average high Did the drawings in the film help you to increase your ability to learn the facts and ideas you SAW during the presentation of this film? ( ) a. yes ( ) b. no 49A. If YES. explain how and how much the drawings in the film helped you to increase your ability to learn the facts and ideas you saw. (Write one to three sentences.) 50. I6] 498. If NO. explain and Justify your reason(s). (Write one to three sentences.) 49C. On a scale from 0 to 4. grade your ability to learn the facts and ideas presented through the drawings you SAW in the film. My personal score is as checked below: 0 l 2 3 4 low high a. zero b. l c. 2 d. 3 e. 4 f. zero* AAAAAA VVVVVV X *Example Did the narration in the film help you to increase your ability to learn the facts and ideas you HEARD during the presentation of the film? 51. 162 50A. If YES. explain how and how much the narration on the film helped you in increasing your ability to learn the facts and ideas you HEARD during the film. (Write one to three sentences.) SOB. If NO. explain and Justify your reason(s). (Write one to three sentences.) SOC. On a scale from O to 4. grade your ability to learn Just from ONLY listening to the narration in the film. My personal grade is as checked below: 0 l 2 3 4 low high a. zero b. l c. 2 d. 3 e. 4 f. zero* AAAAAA VVVVVV X *Example Write the number of the seat you were assigned to for this experiment. My seat number was . 52. 53. 54. I63 On a scale from O to 4. rate how well you SAW the images on the film projected on the screen from the seat you were assigned to. O l 2 3 4 Hardly Saw saw very well a. zero b. l c. 2 d. 3 e. 4 f. zero* AAAAAA vvvvvv X *Example On a scale from O to 4. rate how well you SAW EVERYTHING on the screen from the seat you were assigned to. O l 2 3 4 Hardly Saw Saw very well a. zero b. l c. 2 d. 3 e. 4 f. zero* AAAAAA UVVVVV X *Example On a scale from O to 4. rate how far away your seat was from the screen for you (think in terms of angle-degree of the seat posi- tion). 0 l 2 3 4 Bad Good Good angle angle angle but too close to the ( ) a. zero screen ( ) b. l ( ) c. 2 ( ) d. 3 ( ) e. 4 ( ) f. zero* *Example 55. 56. I64 On a scale from O to 4. rate how well you READ the labels written on the drawings shown in the film. 0 l 2 3 4 Couldn't Hard Read them read to read very well them them ( ) a. zero ( ) b. l ( ) c. 2 ( ) d. 3 ( ) e. 4 (X) f. zero* *Example Do you recall some of the labels written on the drawings shown in the film? ( ) a. yes ( ) b. no 56A. If YES. write the labels that you recall. without going back to the item-questions. (l) (2) (3) (4) (5) 568. If NO. explain the reasons why you could not recall the written labels shown on the drawings in the film. (Write one to three sentences.) 57. 58. 59. 165 Where were located on the screen the written labels on the draw- ings shown in the film you were able to see? Select as many of the below as apply: a. top center of the screen b. center of the screen c. bottom center of the screen d. upper left of the screen-center e. upper right of the screen-center f. bottom left of the screen-center 9. bottom right of the screen-center hAAAfi/‘A On a scale from O to 4. rate how well you could see details on the drawings shown in the film. (For example. "The contractile mech- anism of the striated muscle cell occurs when there are interac- tions of the actin and myosin molecules past each other.") 0 l 2 3 4 Didn't Hardly Saw see saw details details details very well a. zero b. l c. 2 d. 3 e. 4 f. zero* *Example vvvvvv X "Arrows" are details that were used to show the reactions of the chemical elements as sodium and calcium on the muscular con- traction. On a scale from 0 to 4. how well did you see them from the seat you were assigned? 0 l 2 3 4 Didn't Saw some Saw arrows see any arrows but going in arrows not the different directions directions they were going to ( ) a. zero ( ) b. l ( ) c. 2 ( ) d. 3 ( ) e. 4 ( ) f. zero* *Example 60. 61. 166 On a scale from O to 4. rate how good was the physical position of your seat in relation to the central focus of the screen. 0 l 2 3 4 Bad Good position position a. zero b. l c. 2 d. 3 e. 4 f. zero* *Example AAAAAA On a scale from O to 4. rate how well you did in this Performance Test. from your assigned seat. O l 2 3 4 Did Did Did poorly average very well ( ) a. zero ( ) b. l ( ) c. 2 ( ) d. 3 ( ) e. 4 ( ) f. zero* *Example APPENDIX D REASONS FOR CLASSROOM SEATING PREFERENCE FOR VIEWING AN INSTRUCTIONAL FILM I67 168 Reasons for Classroom Seating Preference for Viewing an Instructional Film The statements of reasons for seating preference in classroom for viewing a film were based on studies made on students' seat location in class and other studies related to this approach. These statements of reasons were classified as academic reasons. physical conditions. seat location. and personal space. Each statement was grouped as follows: W W (a) "Have interest in the subject matter" and (b) "Have no interest in the content" were based on the following studies: Walberg (1969. pp. 67-68). McCroskey and McVetta (1978. pp. 109-11): and (c) "Like to participate in classroom" and "Don't like to speak in classroom" were based on the following studies: Hare and Bales (1963. pp. 481-82. 485). Adams (1969. pp. 318-20). Walberg (1969. pp. 67-68). Delefes and Jackson (1972. pp. 122-23). and McCroskey and McVetta (1978. pp. 109-11). W W (a) "Can see and hear better" and an "auditory defects" and "visual problems" were derived from Walberg's study (1969. pp. 67-68). 169 W (a) "Like to be by the door" was derived from Bloom and Winokur (1972. p. 86) and Green (1976. pp. 248-49). (b) "Like to be by the window" was derived from Wal berg's study (1969. pp. 67-68). (c) "No special reason: just like that seat" and (d) "Like that seat's position in the classroom" were taken from Farnsworth's W (a) "Eye-contact with instructor" was taken from the following studies: Argyle and Dean (1965. pp. 302-304). Lott and Sommer (1967. p. 94). Knight et a1. (1973. pp. 399-400). and Koneya (1976. pp. 278- 81). (b) "To receive professor's attention" was derived from the following studies: Farnsworth (1933. p. 375). Horowitz (1968. p. 31). Adams (1969. pp. 318-20). Delefes and Jackson (1972. pp. 122-23). Evans and Howard (1973. pp. 338-41). and Dykman and Reis (1979. pp. 352-54). (c) "Like to be alone" was derived from the following studies: Horowitz (1968. p. 31). Evans and Howard (1973. pp. 338-41). Greene (1976. pp. 248-49). Koneya (1976. pp. 278-81), and Dykman and Reis (1979. pp. 352-54). (d) "To interact with others" was derived from the following studies: Hare and Bales (1963. pp. 481-82). Argyle and Dean (1965. pp. 302-304). Walberg (1969. pp. 67-68). Adams (1969. pp. 318-20). Delefes and Jackson (l972. pp. 122-23). Knight et a1. (1973. 170 pp. 399-400). Koneya (1976. pp. 278-81). and McCroskey and McVetta (1978. pp.109-1l). (e0 "Feel anxiety in middle of the room" was derived from Hare and Bales' study (1963. pp. 481-82. 485). (f) "Afraid of being called by instructor" was derived from the following studies: Horowitz (1968. p. 31). Walberg (1969. pp. 67-68). Evans and Howard (1973. pp. 338-41). Greene (1976. pp. 248-49). and Dykman and Reis (1979. pp. 352-541. (g) "Avoiding noisy and inattentive person" was taken from Farnsworth's study (1933. p. 375). (h) "Keeping distance from instructor" was derived from the following studies: Argyle and Dean (1965. pp. 302-304). Horowitz (1968. p. 31). Walberg (1969. pp. 67-68). Evans and Howard (1973. pp. 338-41). Knight et a1. (1973. pp. 399-400). Greene (1976. pp. 248- 49). and Dykman and Reis (1979. pp. 352-54). BIBLIOGRAPHY 171 BIBLIOGRAPHY Adams. Raymond S. "Location as a Feature of Instructional Interac- tion." .Mennillzflalmen Quarterly 4 (October 1969): 309-21. Allen. William H. "Research on Film Use: Class Preparation." .AM Communisaflon Renew 3 (Summer 1955): 183-96. Argyle. Michael. and Dean. Janet. "Eye-Contact. Distance and Affiliation." Soolomotny 28 (September 1965): 289-304. Biggs. J. B. InionmatjonandflumanLoamjoo. Glenview. 111.: Scott. Foresman and Co.. 1968. Bloom. Jack. and Winokur. Meir. "Stability and Variability of Seat Preference in a Therapy Group: Their Relationship to Patient Behavior." ‘Esyghiatny 35 (February 1972): 78-88. Buchanan. Andrew. 'Ihe.E11m.1n.Edugation. London: Phoenix House. Ltd.. 1951. Cohen. Abraham. "Using Films--Practica1 Considerations." In film 0211mm leaching Croatuoly 111111 111111. pp. 175-87. Edited by Anthony Schillaci and John M. Culkin. New York: Citation Press. 1970. Csikszentmihalyi. Mihalyi. and Rochberg-Holton. Eugene. ‘Iho.Mean1ng of 1011195.: Domestic Sxmbols and tho Self. New York: Cambridge University Press. 1981. Dale. Edgar. .Audioyisual.Me1hods_1n leaching. 3rd ed. Hinsdale. 111.: The Dryden Press. Inc.. 1969. Delefes. Peter. and Jackson. Barry. "Teacher-Pupil Interaction as a Function of Location in the Classroom." .Esxohologx.1n.Ih£ .Sshools 29 (April 1972): 119-23. Dykman. Benjamin M.. and Reis. Harry T. "Personality Correlates of Classroom Seating Position." Journal of Educational Esyohol: .ng 71 (June 1979): 346-54. Erickson. Carlton W. H. EundamontaJs of loaobino With Audio; .xlsua1.Ieghnology. New York: Macmillan. 1965. 172 173 Farnsworth. Paul R. "Seat Preference in the Classroom." Journal of ‘59g1a1.E§yghglggy 4 (1933): 373-76. Frankel. A. Steven. and Barrett. James. "Variations in Personal Space as a Function of Authoritarianism. Self-Esteem. and Racial Char- acteristics of a Stimulus Situation." .Jounnal of Consulting .ond.Qlini£el.ES¥£hology 37 (August 1971): 95-98. Gausewitz. Carl H. "Designing for the Media." Space for Audio: xlfinol.Longe.Gnonp.ln§ILuotion. Madison. Wis.: University Facilities Res. Cir.. November 1964. (ED 017 120) Goldstein. E. Bruce. "The Perception of Multiple Images." .AM Communication Beyiew 23 (Spring 1975): 34-68. Greene. Les R. "Body Image Boundaries and Small Group Seating Arrangements." Journal .91 .QQDSJJJJLIM and Clinical 44 (April 1976): 244-49. Hare. A. Paul. and Bales. Robert F. "Seating Position and Small Group Interaction." .Sooiometny 26 (December 1963): 480-86. Haviland. David S. "Designing Multimedia Rooms for Teaching or the Instructor as the Forgotten User!" .Andioxisual.1nstnuotlon (October 1970): 78-81. Hayman. John L.. Jr. "Viewer Location and Learning in Instructional Television." .AV.Qommunjgatlon.Beyiew 13 (Fall 1965): 27-31. Heinich. Robert; Molenda. Michael; and Russell. James D. lnstnno: IionalMeoLaandtbeNenleobnoJooJesoiInsiLuoflon. New York: John Wiley 8 Sons. 1982. Hoban. Charles F.. Jr. "Experimental Research in Instructional Films." InMotionEIotuLesinEduoatJonsASummarxoitbe .thenatune. pp. 307-66. Edited by Edgar Dale. F. W. Dunn. Charles F. Hoban. Jr.. and Etta Schneider. New York: H. W. Wilson 00.. 1937. Horowitz. Mardi J. "Spatial Behavior and Psychopathology." Ihe Joumal of. Neuous and Mental Disease 146 (January 1968): 24-350 Kaufman. Lloyd. Eeroeption; Ihe World Inansjonmed. New York: Oxford University Press. 1979. Knight. David J.; Langmeyer. Daniel; and Lundgren. David C. "Eye- Contact. Distance and Affiliation: The Role of Observer Bias." 15g§19metny 36 (September 1973): 390-401. 174 Knowlton. Daniel C.. and Tilton. J. Warren. "Auditorium Versus C1assroom Showing of Motion Picture in History Teaching." Journal.oi.EduoationaluEsyobology 23 (October 1932): 663-70. "Kodak Projection Calculator and Seating Guide--For Single- and Mu1ti-Image Presentations." Kodak Publication No. S-16. Rochester. N.Y.: Motion Picture and Audiovisual Markets Division. Eastman Kodak. n.d. Koneya. Mele. "Location and Interaction in Row-and-Column Seating Arrangements." .Enylnonment and Behaxion 8 (June 1976): 265-82. Levine. Michael W.. and Shefner. Jeremy M. ‘Eundamentals.of.Sensa: .Ilon.and.Eenoeot1on. Reading. Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing CO. 9 19810 Liben. Lynn 5.; Patterson. Arthur H.; and Newcombe. Nora. eds. Spatial .Beonesentation.and.8ebax1or.AoLoss.tbe.L11e.§oan:.Ibeonx.and Applications. New York: Academic Press. 1981. Little. Kenneth 8. "Personal Space." Journal of Experimental Social .Efixshology 1 (August 1965): 237-47. Lott. Dale F.. and Sommer. Robert. "Seating Arrangements and Status." .Jounnal.o1.Eensonalltx.and.§oolal.Esxobology 7 (September 1967): 90-95. Mayers. Alan E. "The Effects of Student Location and Teacher Role on Learning From ITV." .AM.Communioation.Bexiew 15 (Summer 1967): 169-79. McCroskey. James C.. and McVetta. Rod W. "Classroom Seating Arrange- ments: Instructional Communication Theory Versus Student Pref- erences." .Qommunlaation Education 27 (March 1978): 99-111. McVey. G. F. "Television: Some Viewer-Display Considerations." .AV .Qammuniaation.fiaylew 18 (Fall 1970): 277-90. Miles. John R.. and Spain. Charles R. .Audio:xjsna1.A1os.1n.tne .Anmeo.5enxioes:.Imolioations.ior.Amenioan.Eouoa11on. Washington. 0.0.: American Council on Education. 1947. Nie. Norman H.. and others. Slatjsjjoal Baggage ion the Social .Sgienges LSESSl. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co.. 1975. Patrie. Jilton. "How Does It Look From Where You Sit?" ‘Aufilgxignnl Instxuotion 11 (March 1966): 186-87. 175 Patterson. A. H. "Spatial Representation and the Environment: Some Applied and Not Very Applied Implications." In Spatial Boon: sentatlon and Behaxjoi: Across the Life Span. pp. 361-69. Edited by L. S. Liben. A. H. Patterson. and N. Newcombe. New York: Academic Press. 1981. Pedhazur. Elazar J. MMlIinl§.B&g£§§Slon.10.B£hfl¥19£hl.8§§§o££ha .Exolanation.and.Enedigtion. 2nd ed. New York: Holt. Rinehart and Winston. 1982. Sommer. Robert. "Classroom Ecology." floutnal.oi.Applied.Behayional Sgienge 3 (October/November/December 1967): 489-503. Totusek. Patsy F.. and Staton-Spicer. Ann 0. "Classroom Seating Preference as a Function of Student Personality." Journal oi Exoenimental floatation 50 (Spring 1982): 159-63. Walberg. Herbert J. "Physical and Psychological Distance in the Classroom." .Ihe School Bexiau 77 (March 1969): 64-71. Wang. Yu Tsum. "The Result of Differential Seating Arrangements Upon Students' Anxiety Level. Acquaintance Volume. and Perceived Social Distance." Ph.D. dissertation. North Texas State University. 1972. Westley. Bruce H.. and Severin. Werner J. "Viewer Location and Student Achievement." .AV Communication Bexiew 13 (Fall 1965): 270-74. Wheeler. Robert 0. Elements of an Eiteotjle Auoloxjshal Emonam A Handbook .for: Wlsoonsin Eduoatons. Madison: Wisconsin State Department of Public Instruction. 1966. Wittich. Walter A.. and Schuller. Charles F. Instnnational.Iaannalagyi .lts Natune and Use. 5th ed. New York: Harper & Row. 1973. Wulf. Kathleen M. "Relationship of Assigned Classroom Seating Area to Achievement Variables." IEdaaationa1.Beseazah Quarterly 2 (Summer 1977): 56-62.