A mm 05 BELIEF SYSTEMS AND '

ACCEPTANCE 05 NEW EDUCATIONAL

mam mm USERS AND NON-USERS ~ ' , v

0F AUDEOVEUAE. GRAPE-MES a

Thesis, for the Define of PK'D- K:

MICHEGAN 3mm HNIVERSITYI
DeLayne TR. 'HudSpeth 7
1966 _ .-

 

?Z’*","' r’ 3
:2} ' YM/ «1
:.~' < a f

 

   
 
   

sag-mu} l
is... i

LI BRA 22 '2“ 1
Michigan State ‘
University

ESIS

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled
A STUDY OF BELIEF SYSTEMS AND

ACCEPTANCE OF NEW EDUCATIONAL MEDIA WITH
USERS AND NON-USERS OF AUDIOVISUAL GRAPHICS

presented by
DeLayne R. Hudspeth
has been accepted towards fulfillment

of the requirements for

fl degree mm

/r”:1 “ '
12a// L/ //¢.{/(4./&/4,

 

 

Major professor

0-169

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ABSTRACT
A STUDY OF BELIEF SYSTEMS AND

ACCEPTANCE OF NEW EDUCATIONAL MEDIA WITH
USERS AND NON—USERS OF AUDIOVISUAL GRAPHICS

by DeLayne R. Hudspeth

This study examined the relationship between two
constructs: open— and closed—mindedness and attitude
toward educational media. Hypotheses were tested for
evidence that faculty who are open—minded, and faculty
who hold a favorable attitude towards the use of media,
act differently in the teaching process than those
faculty who are closed—minded and who do not view media
with a favorable attitude.

Three hypotheses were formulated:

Hl: There will be a correlation between
belief system scores indicating "open-
mindedness” and media attitude scores -

which indicate ”favorable" attitude

toward the use of media in education.

H : Faculty members who use graphics in the
teaching process will be more open in
their belief systems than similar fac—

ulty who do not use graphics in teaching.

 

 

 

DeLayne R. Hudspeth

3: Faculty members who use graphics in the
teaching process will have a more favor—
able attitude toward educational media
than similar faculty who do not use

graphics in teaching.

The study made use of two faculty groups. One group,
identified as users of graphics, was selected from the
total population of faculty teaching at least nine credit
hours during the academic year who were billed for graphics
services during the fiscal year, 1963—64, by the AV Center
at Michigan State University. Members of the user group
were also identified as to department, rank, age, highest
degree held, length of service at Michigan State University,
and percentage of teaching at the graduate or undergraduate
level.

The second group consisted of faculty members matched
with the user group on the above criteria except that these
faculty had used graphics in teaching less than ten times

during the 1964—65 academic year. Faculty of both groups

 

were given three instruments: The Rokeach Dogmatism scale,
the New Educational Media Attitude inventory, and a ques—
tionnaire designed to Obtain data about the samples.

The first hypothesis dealt with the correlation of
belief systems with attitudes toward educational media.

It was predicted that faculty open-minded in their belief

 

DeLayne R. Hudspeth F‘
1.1;

systems would tend to be favorable in their attitudes

toward educational media. This was found to be true to

the extent that scores from the belief system instrument

correlated with scores from the educational media attitude

instrument.

The second hypothesis stated that those faculty who

were identified as users of graphics would be more open

in their belief systems than similar faculty who do not

use graphics. The null of this hypothesis could not be

rejected.
The third hypothesis dealt with attitudes toward

educational media by the two groups of faculty. It was

predicted that those faculty using graphics would have a
more favorable attitude toward all educational media than

faculty not using graphics. The data clearly supported

this hypothesis.

 

 

 

 

 

A STUDY OF BELIEF SYSTEMS AND
ACCEPTANCE OF NEW EDUCATIONAL MEDIA WITH
USERS AND NON—USERS OF AUDIOVISUAL GRAPHICS

By

DeLayne R. Hudspeth

A THESIS

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

College of Education

1966

 

 

 

 

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

A number of people deserve thanks for their support
in the writing of this dissertation. This group ranges
from the faculty at Michigan State University who had the
kindness to cooperate on the study, to colleagues who
alternately played the role of devil's advocate, or offered
sympathy, whichever seemed needed.

The first I would like to single out for thanks is
Dr. Charles F. Schuller, my advisor. His patience, friend—
ship, and guidance supplied an essential role in my growth
as a student of technology. Dr. Schuller also made it
possible for me to pursue doctoral studies in Educational
Media as a Fellow of the National Defense Education Act.

I would also like to thank Dr. Cole S. Brembeck, Dr. William
A. Faunce and Dr. Ted W. Ward for their assistance as
members of my committee.

Additional thanks go to fellow students in the Educa-
tional Media program who provided the sounding board for
ideas which ranged from timid to temerarious. The opportunity
over the past years to work in close association with this
group has been an indispensable part of my education. The
help of Mr. Donald G. Wylie in editing and proofing is eSpe—

cially appreciated.

'3.

 

 

 

 

A special tribute must be given to my wife, Odette,
for the many patient hours she spent as a dissertation
widow. Her faith has been of great help in maintaining

the perseverance needed to complete the degree.

 

 

 

 

 

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. . . . . . . . .

LIST OF

LIST OF

Chapter

I.

II.

III.

IV.

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLES . . . . . . . . . .
EXHIBITS IN THE APPENDIX . . . . . . .

THE PROBLEM. . . . . . . . . .

Need for the Study . . . . .
The Purpose of the Study . .
The Hypotheses . . . . .

Definition of Terms. . . .
Plan of the Study. . . . . . . .

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . .

The Nature of Technology . . .
The Science of Educational Technology.

Systems and Educational Technology . .

The Nature of Change . . . . . .

Diffusion of Innovation. . .

Diffusion and the Open—Minded Person .

The Open- ~Minded Person . . . . . .

Faculty Attitude Towards Educational
Media. . . . . . .

Summary. . . . . .

PROCEDURES . . . . .

Plan of the Study. . . . . .
Selection of the Faculty PartiCipants.

Instruments Used in the Study. . . . .
Statistical Analysis . . . . . . . . .
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS. . . . .
Findings of the Study. . . .
Discussion of the Findings .
Summary of the Results .p. . . .

iv

Page
ii

vi

52

53-
55

63
66
66
76

 

 

Chapter

V.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

APPENDIX

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.

Summary.
Conclusions.

Implications for the Media Change

Agent.
Summary of the Implicati.ons.
Recommendations for Further Study.

a

c

o

a

Page
79

79
82

86
91
92
95

101

 

 

\ J—xvf’fl .. - r

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Distribution of faculty with open and
closed belief systems for users and
non—users of graphics in teaching. . . . . 69

2. Distribution of faculty with favorable
and unfavorable educational media
attitude scores for users and non—
users of graphics in teaching. . . . . . . 7O

 

 

vi

 

 

LIST OF APPENDICES

 

Appendix; Page
I. Rokeach Dogmatism Scale. . . . . . . . . . 101
II. New Educational Media Attitude
Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
III. Format of Initial Telephone Contact ‘
109

with Faculty. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
IV. Comparative Data for Users and Non-Users . 111

V. Faculty Questionnaire, o , . o a o . , 3 , 114

 

 

 

Chapter I

THE PROBLEM

The Need for the Study

Modern historians of technology such as Oliver
emphasize the fact that American civilization is fundamen—
tally a technological civilization. As such, technology
is not to be confined to industry and science, and is seen
more and more clearly as a force affecting values in the
social sciences. This force is seen with increasing clarity
in education as pressures from both within and without the
educational system cause imbalances in the traditional
educational setting.

This is perhaps more true in education than in other
segments of our society due to tradition and to the present
operating pattern where "the heart of educational practice,
at least in its present form, is the instructional group".2
The results of these pressures has been an increased aware—
ness on the part of some educators for broader vision and

a need to utilize more efficient ways of accomplishing the

 

1J. W. Oliver, History of American Technology, New
York: Ronald Press, 1956.

2Gale Jensen, "Introduction: The Newcomer," The Dynamics
of Instructional Groups, N. B. Henry, editor (Chicago, The

University of Chicago Press, 1960), p. 4.

 

 

 

 

 

educational tasks.

As the pressures of technology become even greater

it becomes imperative that educators assume leadership for

the effective use of new educational tools. The use of

new tools and new systems assumes an ability on the part
of an educator to clearly identify those components of the

systems which might be more efficiently organized to pro—

duce desired outcomes. This, of course, includes the human

component and its reaction and interaction with the other

parts of the system.

Given the fact that institutions will face an increasing
amount of pressure to use technological tools, it becomes
necessary to identify those individuals and groups who
will entertain new processes and who will engage in the
kind of activities that advance the practice of teaching

and learning.

The successful use of innovations in the teaching—

learning process assumes a staff of people who are open

to continuous examination of their role. They must be open

to the possibility that this role may change with time and

with the insertion of new kinds of energy.

Two areas of research are suggested in light of the
need to identify people who can act in an open—minded

manner. The first of these is a study of belief systems

which attempts to measure the "open" or "closed" mindedness

 

 

 

 

of an individual.

The work of Rokeach will be explained in detail in
Chapter II, but essentially his research involves looking

at belief systems of individuals related to the way in

which a "person's system is open or closed; namely, the

extent to which the person can receive, evaluate, and act

on relevant information received from the outside on its

own intrinsic merits, unencumbered by irrelevant factors

in the situation arising from within the person or from

the outside."3

If such open—minded people can be identified, then

such persons are the most likely candidates for the success—

ful use of new technologies. Such an open—minded person is

necessary if it is assumed that technological practices
can be either good or bad and that the best use of new tools
and systems in the initial exploratory stage will depend

upon criteria which must be evaluated "unencumbered by

irrelevant factors."

However, the faculty of a major university will include

people holding belief systems both open and closed. The

practical question, when the problem of innovation diffusion

is faced, becomes that of trying to predict where within

3Milton Rokeach, The Open and Closed Mind, New York:
Basic Books, Inc., 1960, p. 57.

4Ibid., p. 57.

 

 

 

 

the faculty the greatest profit will occur when the dissem—

ination of ideas becomes systematized. In the media field

tie

the question becomes that of trying ef identify those who

are sympathetic towards the use of media technology in the

teaching~learning process.

An instrument developed for this purpose was designed
originally by Ramsey5 and later modified by Guba and

Snyder.6 The New Educational Media Acceptance Inventory

(NEMA) was designed to assess the degree and amount of
unfavorable or sympathetic attitudes toward the more com—

monly used media. A detailed explanation of this instrument

will be found in Chapter II, but essentially the NEMA was
designed to help an instructional supervisor or curriculum

consultant "know the exact nature of resistance to the

use of new educational media by teachers in the instructional

7
program."'

The present study attempts to determine whether measures

5Curtis Paul Ramsey, A Research Project for the
Development of a Measure to Assess Attitudes Regarding
the Uses of New Educational Media. Title VII, Project
Number 492, National Defense Education Act of 1958, Grant
Number 740095, Nashville, Tennessee: George PeabOdy
College for Teachers, December, 1961.

6Egon G. Guba and Clinton A. Snyder, Research and
Evaluation on MPATI Telecasts, Final Report, RF Project
1367, Research Foundation, Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State

University, April, 1964.

7Ramsey, op. cit., p. 2.

 

of belief systems and attitudes towards new media can be
used to identify individuals who are able to work effectively
with new and pressing technologies of education. To see
in fact if the instruments could be used in this way, a
group of teachers known to have used certain educational
tools were given the evaluation instruments and their
responses were compared to faculty who have not used these
tools. ’

The tools under consideration for this study are those
graphics which can be used in the classroom. This includes
slides, charts, filmstrips, posters, graphics and overhead

transparencies. Excluded are the chalkboard and the 16mm

film.

The Purpose of the Study

The purpose of the study will be to see if teachers
who use certain of the media in the teaching—learning
process are different in their responses to the Dogmatism
scale8 and to the New Educational Media Attitude Inventory
scale9 than similar teachers who do not use media.

Evidence from such research might be used in several

8See Appendix I for a copy of the instrument used.

9See Appendix II for a copy of the instrument used.

ways for the innovation diffusion process. Although the
theory will be developed in Chapter II, it is suggested
that such evidence could be used where specific innovations
were to be introduced into the teaching-learning situation.
These innovations could range from the relatively simple
overhead projector (used by instructors at the point of
student contact), to the more complex use of CCTV where
much greater cooperation must exist and where persons out-
side the classroom become involved in the instructional
process. A more detailed examination of these possibilities
will be found in Chapter V.

A secondary, but equally important, outcome of the
study is further validation of the NEMA scale. As Ramsey
points out, "A fruitful area of research would be to attempt

to correlate attitude assessment findings (of NEMA) with
. . . . . . "lO .
critical inc1dents or behaVioral phenomena. . . This
will be done by comparing scores on the NEMA Scale with

use of media by faculty. It is reasonable to assume that
.faculty using media will have a more favorable attitude
'toward the use of media and this should be reflected in the

INEMA score.

More specifically this study will attempt to answer

the following questions:

ORamsey, Op. cit., p. 2.

1. Is there a relationship between faculty
members who score "open—minded" in a belief
system measure and those who score "favor—

able" toward the use of new educational media?

2. What is the relationship of scores obtained
on a measure of "open-closed belief system"
for faculty members who use graphics in
teaching and for similar faculty who do not

use graphics?

3. What is the relationship of scores obtained
with the New Educational Media Attitude
scale, for faculty members who use graphics

in teaching and for similar faculty who do

not use graphics?

The Hypotheses
The hypotheses to be tested in this study are:

H : There will be a correlation between belief
system scores indicating "open—mindedness"
and media attitude scores which indicate

a "favorable” attitude towards the use

of media in education.

 

H : Faculty members who use graphics in the

2
teaching process are more open in their
belief systems than similar faculty
who do not use graphics in teaching.
H3: Faculty members who use graphics in the

teaching process will have a more favor—
able attitude towards the use of media as
indicated by the New Educational Media
Attitude scale than similar faculty who

do not use graphics in the teaching process.

Definition of Terms

The following is a definition of terms which will be

used in this study:
Open belief system faculty:

A faculty member who scores below the mean

on the Rokeach Dogmatism scale.ll

Closed belief system faculty:

A faculty member who scores above the mean

on the Rokeach Dogmatism scale.

. lScoring on this instrument is such that a low score
indicates openness in the belief system.

 

Faculty with favorable attitude toward educational

media:

Faculty who score below the mean on the

New Educational Media Attitude Inventory.12

Faculty with unfavorable attitude toward educational
media:
Faculty who score above the mean on the

New Educational Media Attitude Inventory.

Faculty who are users of graphics in the teaching—
learning process:
Faculty who have used graphics in teaching
ten or more times during the 1964—65 academic
year. Such faculty will have had teaching

responsibility for at least nine credit hours.

Faculty who are non—users of graphics in the teaching—
learning process:
Faculty who have used graphics less than ten
times during the 1964—65 academic year. Such
faculty will have had teaching responsibility

for at least nine credit hours.

 

2Scoring on this instrument is such that a low score

indicates a favorable attitude toward educational media.

I
p

 

 

 

 

 

-10-

Plan of the Study

As this study deals with users of technology in
teaching, it was decided that the group chosen for examina-
tion would include those faculty on campus who were actively
using teaching tools. Because of data availability con—
cerning the activity of faculty, an arbitrary category of
technology users was chosen called "users of graphics".

The initial list of users was obtained from the 1963—64
Audiovisual Center records. These were faculty who had
obtained materials and/or services and who had been billed.
Subsequently this list was checked against a record of the
faculty load for the l963~64 academic year and any faculty
member not having a teaching load of at least nine hours
was eliminated from the list of users.

This list was then checked against the 1965 faculty
list to eliminate names of those who had left the faculty.

A similar population of faculty was drawn from the
remaining names based upon department affiliation, age,
rank, length of service at Michigan State University, and
latest degree obtained. This population would act as the
comparison group for the hypotheses to be tested.

As a final check to be sure that faculty were actually

users or non—users of graphics, a short questionnaire was

administered before the two principal instruments were given.

 

 

-11-

The function of this questionnaire was to identify faculty

as to whether or not they were graphics users, obtain data

concerning faculty attitude toward the efficiency of the

graphics department, and finally, to check against obvious

biases which would skew the distribution of scores.

 

Chapter II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

The Nature of Technology

The use of technology in education is a fairly recent

phenomenon. While education must take its place with other

segments of American society that use technology (medical,

social, media, crime, to name a few) educational technology

nonetheless represents a major shift in the educational
pattern. Although early uses of teaching aids can be seen

in the late l700'sl, this use of materials does not con—

stitute instructional technology.

The term technology comes from the Greek word technologia,

meaning systematic treatment. A more precise use of the

term is described by Greenwood:

The term technology refers to all disciplines
designed to achieve controlled changes in
natural relationships by means of procedures
that are scientifically based. Convention
makes a sharp distinction between those

lCharnel Anderson, Technology in American Education
1650-1900, U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,

#OE- 34018, Washington, D. C., 1962.

 

. 2Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, G & C Merriam
Company, Springfield, Massachusetts, 1961, p. 872.

-12..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-13-

technologists who work with material objects
and those who handle human beings. The former
are referred to as engineers; the latter, as

practitioners. 3

Greenwood goes on to state that, "Technologists are char—

acterized by their skill in the application of knowledge

to the solution of the problems that occur to human beings."
Educational technologists might then be judged on the

skill they develop in the application of knowledge about

teaching and learning to the solution of problems that

occur to those involved in the teaching—learning process.

To the extent that a teacher solves problems by means of

procedures that are scientifically based, they become

educational technologists.

The growing awareness that technology is making an

impact on education is discussed by DeCecco:

There seems very little to which the scientific
method cannot be fruitfully applied, and many
individuals believe it is high time to apply

it to the objectives, procedures, and materials.
of the school curriculum. The notion of a
scientific base for education is not new, but
the strengthening of the scientific milieu in
which this idea is now resurrected gives it
particular conviction and popularity. 5

 

3Ernest Greenwood, ”The Practice of Science and the
Science of Practice," in The Planning of Change, Bennis,
Benne and Chin, editors (New York: Rinehart, Holt, and

Winston, 1962), p. 74.

4Ibid., p. 74.

5John P. DeCecco, Educational Technology, New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1964, p. 11.

 

-14...

Several factors go into the view that education is

just beginning a technological era. One factor is dis—

cussed by Price, in his book on the history of Science, when
he talks of the need for the instrument makers and the

theoretical scientists to walk together.

Taken in context of educational technology, this

suggests that education has not had what might be referred

to as "primary technology". Just as the modern house assumes

primary technology in that certain services will be avail—

able such as sewage, electricity, and water, so must the

technology of education assume that basic machinery, certain

kinds of manpower, systems of analysis and educational

materials are available.

The growth of technology in education is examined by

Finn who feels that: "The American educational enterprise

exists out of technological balance with great sectors of

the society." Finn feels that this picture is changing,

and suggests that "we View the present educational culture
as analogous to an underdeveloped culture under assault by
technology from the co—existing highly SOphisticated cul—

tures of industry, business, and even certain sectors of

6Derek J. deSolla Price, Science Since Babylon, Clinton,

Massachusetts: Colonial Press, 1961, p. 51.

7James D. Finn, Occasional Paper No. 6, Studies in the
ggowth of Instructional Technology, I: Audio—Visual Instrumen—
Ifition for Instruction in the Public Schools, 1930—1960 —— A
Pésis for Take—off, a report prepared for the National Education

Association, Washington, D.C., 1962, p. 1.

 

 

-15-

the government, such as the military and scientific sectors."
Finn goes on to describe several reasons for the situa—
tion mentioned above and suggests that education can be
viewed as a culture in transition. He further finds that
education ”is now beginning the take—off stage into a high—
order, high—energy cultureLgand that it is the first educa—
tional system in the world to reach this stage." (author's
emphasis)9 To document the "tooling up" of this culture,
he submits evidence as to the number of educational tools
being used over the last three decades, and asks that "we'
view the build-up of audio—visual equipment and materials
in education as one of the principal preconditions for a

technological revolution in education . . ."10

The Science of Educational Technology

The distinction between the use of machines as tech—
nology, and the use of technology as defined above, is fre—

quently not made. For example, the NEA report Schools for

 

the 60's does not make this distinction:

 

8Ibid., p. 2.

91bid., p. 6.

10Ibid., p. 9.

 

I‘—_

—16-

In both new and old buildings, technological
developments, such as TV, tape—recordings,
teaching machines, language laboratories,
films and filmstrips, already have made marked
contributions to the curriculum. Their use

is expected to spread widely in the future. 11

While it is true that the use of such hardware and their
associated programs focuses the attention of educators

23 technology (". . . controlled changes in natural relation—
12
,

 

ships by means of procedures that are scientifically based")
a superficial examination of the way most educational materials
are used suggests that this focus is not conscious and that
materials are frequently misused.

This misuse is not necessarily the fault of those who
design instructional materials, nor the teachers who use
such materials. Travers, for example, suggests that "Up
to this point in history, psychology has not had much influ—
ence on the design of audiovisual teaching materials, probably
because until very recent times, the psychology of perception
and learning had not advanced to the point where they had

much practical advice to offer."13 Travers goes on to point

 

11National Education Association, Schools for the 60's,
New York: McGraw Hill Company, 1963.

2Greenwood, 9p. cit., p. 74.

3Robert M. W. Travers, Research and Theory Related to
Agdiovisual Information Transmission, Interim Report for the
U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of
Education Contract No. 3—20—003, Salt Lake City, Utah:
University of Utah, 1964, p. 1.02.

 

 

-17-

out that "Within the last decade research in psychology
has taken a turn which may end the impasse and which may
lead to a close working association between those concerned

with the design of audiovisual aids and those engaged in

psychological research."14

Skinner speaks both to the point of technology being
broader than machines as well as to the possibility that
a true technology of instruction may emerge:

A much more effective kind of research is

now becoming possible. Teaching may be defined
as an arrangement of contingencies of rein—
forcement under which behavior changes.
Relevant contingencies can be most success—
fully analyzed in studying the behavior of
one student at a time under carefully con—
trolled conditions. Few educators are aware
of the extent to which human behavior is
being examined in arrangements of this sort,
but a true technology of teaching is imminent.
(underlining added) 15

§ystems and Educational Technology

A more accurate picture of technology emerges with
the use of systems and systems analysis as these concepts

infiltrate education. Miller points out:

 

l4Ibid., p. 1.03.
15B. F. Skinner, "Why Teachers Fail," Saturday Review,

 

Vol. XLVIII, No. 42, (October 16, 1965), p. 80—102.

 

 

-18—

In the past decade, educators have evidenced
increasing interest in the use of general
systems theory in the instructional process.
Both the_§ystems approach and instructional
systems analysis are being studied by the
education profession. (underlining is author's
emphasis) 16

 

 

 

Although many definitions of systems may be found in the
literature, the one used in this discussion comes from
Ryans:

A system may be described simply as an assem—

blage of interdependent elements or subsystems

which function together as an organized whole

to yield a product unique to that assemblage.

The organized functioning of the system is

dependent upon orderly interaction among the

component elements or subsystems made possible

by information flow and control. 17
Systems are used in education to achieve stated goals or
to describe an on—going process. When systems are used
to solve problems and when this planned change is built
upon the social values found in a society or segment of
society (such as education), then technology becomes the
marketplace of thought. While systems and technology are

similar in that they are scientific in nature, systems and

systems analysis are viewed as tools in educational technology.

 

l6Elwood E. Miller, Instructional Systems Development,
unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University,
East Lansing, 1965, from first page abstract.

17David G. Ryans, Systems Analysis in Educational
Planning, TM 1968, unpublished paper of the Systems Development
Corporation, Santa Monica, California: July 9, 1964, p. 5.

 

 

 

-19_

The Nature of Change

Implied in the above discussion of technology is the
nature of change. Students of technology, whether in
educational media or in other areas, need to be conversant
with the "application of systematic and appropriate know—
ledge to human affairs for the purpose of creating intel—
ligent action and change."18 The mere insertion of
technological energy into a system does not necessarily
guarantee the desired results, as any AV director can
testify.

What must take place if a technological system is to
be effective is a conscious strategy concerning the problems
of how people function. As the authors of The Planning of

Change state:

A planning approach to social change . . .

has become a necessity, under conditions of
contemporary culture, rather than a live

option. The live options to be faced by

change agents today are ancillary to this
approach and center upon questions of how
change should be planned and how the direction
and ends of change may be validly determined. 19

In other words, it is important to study the change process

' gua change process so that the emerging change agents within

18Warren G. Bennis, Kenneth D. Benne and Robert Chin,
Epe Planning of Change. New York: Rinehart, Holt, and
Winston, 1962, p. 3.

19Ibid., p. 18.

 

.20_

and from outside education may be better understood.

The educational climate has never been a stagnate
ione. What education is facing is an order of change
unprecedented in educational history. Brickell, for
example, found that the "rate of innovation [in New York
State] had more than doubled in the fifteen months fol—
lowing the launching of the Soviet Sputnik I in October
of 1957."20

The reasons for this phenomenal change rate are many
and need not be documented here. Some of these factors
are: population explosion, knowledge explosion, the view
that education is a national resource, the use of new tools
(such as the computer to study social behavior), and the
insertion into education of considerable energy from out-
side agencies.

The traditional change process of education curriculum
is described by Johnson as having six steps: (1) the
program is evaluated to find specific content or skills
which students are not mastering; (2) research is reviewed;
(3) revisions are developed based on research findings;

(4) additional equipment and materials are acquired;

(5) in—service meetings are conducted; (6) the new program

0Henry M. Brickell, "State Organization for Educational
Change: A Case Study and a Proposal," Innovation in Education,
Matthew B. Miles, editor (New York: Bureau of Publications,
Teachers College; Columbia University, 1964), p. 495.

 

 

-21-

is introduced.21 And yet there is evidence that the tradi—
tional change process is rapidly being circumvented by those
who are interested in changing both curriculum and systems
of operation within education.

One of the better known examples of this circumvention
involves the diffusion of the Physical Science Study Com-
mittee (PSSC) physics curriculum. While it is true that
the curriculum developed by the PSSC group went through
the change process described above, the later adoption of
this curriculum by the schools did not, nor was there
planning on the part of the PSSC that there would be.

In fact, as Marsh points out: ”At any rate, even if its
avoidance of explicit diffusion strategy was itself a deli—
berate policy, the PSSC's planning remained lopsidedly
national, scientific, and technological."

The typical diffusion of PSSC seems to start with the
fifth step mentioned above (the conduct of inwservice
meetings) rather than with the first step (the evaluation

of the program to find specific content or skills which

 

21Donald W. Johnson, "Title III and the Dynamics of
EducationalChange in California Schools," in Innovation
ip~Education, Matthew B. Miles, editor (New York: Bureau
of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University,
1964), p. 170.

22Paul E. Marsh, "Wellsprings of Strategy: Considera—
tions Affecting Innovations by the PSSC," in Innovation
ip Education, Matthew B. Miles, editor (New York: Bureau
of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University,
l964),p. 251.

 

-22-

students are not mastering). As Marsh suggests, "The

increasingly numerous teacher—training institutes, usually

but by no means exclusively supported by the National

Science Foundation at institutions of higher learning all

over the country, were conceded to be appropriate vehicles

for teaching teachers about PSSC materials."23
However, the diffusion of PSSC did not rest solely

with teacher—training institutes. Many schools adopted

the PSSC curriculum without any contact with such institutes.

What did seem to emerge as a major factor in the diffusion

of the PSSC curriculum was that "wherever neighboring

teachers have been able to see for themselves —— see PSSC

supplies working in ordinary classrooms, in whatever kind

of school —— adoption of the new syllabus has spread year

by year."24

Diffusion of Innovation

A more accurate model to explain the diffusion process,
whereby the PSSC program spread to a large number of schools
in a little over eight years, is one developed by Rogers.

He contends that there are "four crucial elements in the

 

23Ibid., pp. 261—262.

24Ibid., p. 264.

 

_.23...

analysis of the diffusion of innovations: (1) the innovation

(2) its communication from one individual to another (3) in

a social system (4) over time.”25

Rogers describes innovation as an idea which is con—

sidered new to the individual.26 An innovation in education

such as programed instruction is ”new" in the 50's because
those in education perceive this method to be a change,

even though the principle was suggested by Pressey in 1926.27

 

Once an idea exists it changes people only to the
extent that it spreads from one person to another. "Thus,
at its most elemental level of conceptualization, the dif—
fusion process consists of (l) a new idea, (2) individual A

who knows about the innovation, and (3) individual B who
does not yet know about the innovation."28
The social system as defined by Rogers is "a population

of individuals who are functionally differentiated and

engaged in collective problem—solving behavior."29 In the

a“

5Everett M. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovation, New York:
The Free Press of Glencoe, 1962, p. 12.

26Ibid., p. 13.

7William G. Henry, Jr., "What Makes a Teaching Machine
Teach?", Audiovisual Instruction, Vol. 6, No. 4, (April,
1961), p. 126.
28 .
Rogers, op. c1t., pp. 13—14.

29Ibid., p. 14.

 

-24_

case of innovation diffusion in education it will be
suggested later that one kind of differentiation of the
individual is that of his belief system.

Types of adoption decisions can range from individual
choice where the change that occurred affects just the
person involved, to decisions made by groups of people which
affect large numbers of individuals.

The importance of considering the social structure
when looking at the diffusion of ideas is emphasized by
Katz. ”. . . it is about as unthinkable to study diffusion
without some knowledge of the social structures in which
the potential adopters arejlocated as it is to study blood
circulation without adequate knowledge of the structure of
veins and arteries."30

The last stage of the innovation diffusion process
involves time. This is seen as a process whereby the person
who has been exposed to the innovation shows awareness,
develops an interest, evaluates the possible outcomes,
gives the innovation a trial, and then adopts the innovation.31

Although there is some disagreement among diffusion

researchers, the criteria for the difference between adoption

M

3OElihu Katz, "The Social Itinerary of Technical Change:
Two Studies on the Diffusion of Innovation," Human Organization,
Vol. 20 (1961), p. 71.

3
1Rogers, op. cit., p. 17.

 

 

 

 

 

-25-

process and diffusion process accepted by this paper will

be the position held by Rogers: "The adoption process

differs from the diffusion process in that the adoption
process deals with the adoption of a new idea by one individual
while the diffusion process deals with the spread of new
ideas in a social system, or with the spread of innovations
between social systems or societies."32

The adopter time line has been broken into five cate—
gories by Rogers based on the innovativeness of the individual
or social system. "The five categories . . . are innovators,

early adopters, early majority, late majority, 33

and laggards."
Examination of the diffusion process whereby PSSC
became the dominant physics curriculum shows that the change
occurring in the physics programs across the country essen—
tially follows the pattern described above by Rogers.
Furthermore, various other new curriculums, even though
diffused on a more deliberate basis, can still be seen as
conforming to the basic adopter pattern.34 These would
include the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS),
Chemistry Study Program (CHEM), and School Mathematics Study
Group (SMSG).

 

321bid., pp. 17—18.
331bid., p. 19.
34

For a discussion of these new curriculums see Johnson,

Op. cit., pp. 163—166.

 

 

 

 

 

-26_

These particular examples also follow Miles‘ strategy

of innovation which considers the problem of establishing

an innovation into, or by, a target system:

(1) design — the innovation is invented, dis—
covered, made up out of whole cloth, produced
by research and development operations, etc.;

(2) awareness—interest - the potential consumers
of the innovation, that is, members of the
target system, come to be aware of the
existence of the designed innovation, become
interested in it, and seek information about
its characteristics;

(3

V

evaluation — the consumers perform a kind
of mental trial of the innovation, and form
pro/con opinions about its efficacy in
accomplishing system goal, its feasibility,
and its cost;

(4) trial — the target system engages in a
(usually) small scale trial of the innovation,

in order to assess its consequences. 35
One similarity between the Rogers and Miles models
stands out: the focus on an individual who does or does
not become a change agent, an individual who accepts or
rejects an innovation. The present study begins, then, with
the assumption that it is the classroom teacher who will be

the pivot point in the acceptance or rejection of a new

idea. Occasionally, innovation in the classroom will be

 

35Miles, op. cit., pp. 19—20.

 

 

_27_

accepted by teachers through default.36 More often innova—
tion occurs in the curriculum because new materials become
available, such as the PSSC and other curricula materials
mentioned above.

The point is, innovation which deals with the teaching—
learning process usually comes from those outside the foci
of teaching, either administrators (on a practical level)
or researchers (on a theoretical level). Occasionally,
innovations are met by persons with an open mind who criti—
cally examine the innovation for what it offers, whereupon
it may become a part of the system because it meets certain

needs or does the best job in solving a certain problem.

Diffusion and the Open—Minded Person

A basic assumption held in this study is that open—
minded persons are essential if technology is to be used
in education. It is felt that the media change agent will
want to identify those kinds of people who are most apt to

examine and utilize various forms of technology in such a

 

36This "acceptance" might be best described as a form
Of professional myopia. An example of this can be seen when

a department "suddenly" faces a problem of too many students
to be taught with the available staff. This particular
problem is usually "solved" by administrative manipulation
which involves large group instruction, closed—circuit
television, or both.

 

 

 

 

—28-

way that myth, habit and suspicion play a minimal role.

In the following pages evidence will be cited which
indicates that open—minded persons are less resistant to
change and that such persons are less subject to internal
and external pressures which work to maintain the status
gpg. The case will be developed for having open—minded
persons as innovators and early adopters in order that
technology might be maximally effective in creating school

systems capable of moving with other segments of our

society.

The Open—Minded Person

Because the tools of technology frequently require
a person to change his modus operandi and subsequently his
relationships with people, the quality of personality and

belief systems becomes of paramount importance. As Jaques

points out:

We already know how difficult this relation—
ship becomes [between the change agent and
the one to be changed] even in the domain of
the physical sciences and engineering; how
much farmers, for example, often resent the
intrusion of the government agricultural
expert with his new and supposedly superior
methods. How much more difficult does the
problem of establishing a satisfactory
relationship become, however, where not crops
but the changing of human behaviour itself
becomes the target of scientific endeavour.
The very core of personality is touched and

 

 

 

 

 

 

_29_

the deepest resistances are mobilized
against the intruder. 37

Jaques goes on to suggest that a key to success—
ful change involves doing things BEER people as opposed
to doing things pg people.38 What he does not elaborate
on is the "core Of personality" which is involved in
this change process.

Rogers, the student of diffusion mentioned pre—
viously, does feel that personality plays an important
role in innovativeness: ”I feel personality variables
can, in part, explain innovativeness, especially in
settings where compliance decisions are not forced upon
the individual by the social structure."39 He states
further that the "personality of school staff as related
to innovativeness" is one of four important areas for

future educational diffusion research.4O

 

7Elliott Jaques, "Social Therapy: Technocracy or
Collaboration?”, in The Planning of Change, Bennis,

 

Benne and Chin, editors (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and
Winston, 1962), p. 163.

38Ibid., pp.l62—l68.

9Everett M. Rogers, ”Innovations: Research Design

and Field Studies" (Paper presented at the Conference

on Novel Strategies and Tactics for Field Studies

Involving New Educational Media, The Ohio State University,
Columbus, Ohio, May 10—12, 1965), p. 10.

40Ibid., p. 18.

 

 

 

_30_

"Personality" has been described by many people in 1
many ways. Homans says that personality includes "at least
the following factors: (a) a person's inherited biological
tendencies, (b) the psychological tendencies induced by the
social training given him in early life, and (c) the pres—
sures brought to bear on him by his immediate social situation
outside the group in question . ."41
Trow uses the term personality "to refer to the generalized
aspects of the characteristic responsewpatterns of an individual,
whether native or acquired, and however they may be socially
or morally evaluated."42
Getzels and Thelen, in discussing the social system
of a group, define personality as "the dynamic organization
within the individual of those need—dispositions that govern
his unigue reactions to the environment and . . . to the
expectations in the environment."43

The "organizations" that Getzels and Thelen discuss

have been examined by Rokeach in terms of belief systems:

E

41George C. Homans: The Human Grou , New York: Harcourt,
Brace and Company, 1950, p. 138-

_ 42William Clark Trow, "Role Functions of the Teacher

in the Instructional Group," in The Dynamics of Instructional
Groups, N. B. Henry, editor (Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press, 1960), p. 31.

43Jacob W. Getzels and Herbert A. Thelen, "The Classroom
GFOUP as a Unique Social System," in The Dynamics of Instruc—
tional Grou s, N. B. Henry, editor (Chicago: The University
Of Chicago Press, 1960), p. 68.

 

 

1311

During the course of our investigation we
have come more and more to view a given
personality as an organization of beliefs

or expectancies having a definable and
measurable structure. We have also come

to conceive of ideolOgy, insofar as it is
represented within the psychological structure
of the person, in exactly the same way,
namely, as an organization of beliefs and
expectancies. And, finally, we have come to
conceive of man's cognitive activities -—
thinking, remembering, and perceiving ~-

as processes and changes that take place
within a person who has already formed a
system of beliefs, which we can describe

and measure. 44

The system that Rokeach describes has particular relevance
for diffusion studies in that it is possible to describe
both individuals as well as groups in Rokeach's terms. As
Halpin and Croft state: "Even as one can regard minds as
open or closed. so can we view Organizational Climates as
Open or Closed."45
An understanding of the terms "open" and "closed” as

they refer to the belief systems of individuals starts with
the basic premise that "it is not so much HERE you believe
that counts, but 22p you believe.”46 Subsequently, Rokeach
suggests that ”a basic characteristic that defines the

extent to which a person's system is open or closed [ifl

\—

44
Rokeach, op. cit., p. 7.

45
_ Andrew W. Halpin and Don B. Croft, The Opganizational
Climate of Schools, Cooperative Research Project No. 543,
U- S. Office of Education, 1962, p. 78.

 

6Rokeach, op. cit., p. 6.

 

 

 

namely, the extent to which the person can receive, evaluate,
and act on relevant information received from the outside

on its own intrinsic merits, unencumbered by irrelevant
factors in the situation arising from within the person or
from the outside."47

It is Rokeach's contention that the belief—disbelief
system theory, as it relates to belief structure and con—
tent, is a general personality theory operationalized to
some extent by his "dogmatism scale." The scale purports
to measure the nature of the belief structure (ppp one
believes) held by an individual.

The concept of ”dogmatism” is also related to how the
various beliefs are interrelated within the system of all
beliefs held by the individual. Theoretically, the high
dogmatic (closedwminded) person has a relatively undifferen—
tiated beliefwdisbelief system. Therefore, one has an
inability to separate one belief system or subsystem from
the others. To some extent this characteristic of the
high dogmatic (closedmminded person) makes it difficult for
him to assimilate new information, particularly if the new
information challenges a presently held central belief.

Conversely, the low dogmatic (open—minded individual

has a highly differentiated (separated) belief—disbelief

M

471bid., p. 57.

 

 

_33-

system, and is more likely to allow various parts of
the total belief system to interact even if it creates
a high level of dissonance or conflict within his cog—

nitive structure. Subsequently, he is more open to

 

new information and can assimilate it into his beliefs
more easily.
Rokeach proposes that the beliefs held by man have

a pattern or structure which is to some extent predict~

 

able. This lacework of beliefs is represented by a
system ranging on a continuum from a central or highly
important position to a peripheral or relatively unim—
portant position. The central beliefs are "all the
beliefs a person has acquired about the nature of the
physical world he lives in, the nature of the "self"

"48

and of the "generalized other". The peripheral

region "represents the beliefs derived from authority,
such beliefs filling in the details of the world map."49

Rokeach suggests that certain intermediate beliefs
(those between the central and peripheral) will prob—
ably rest upon the person accepting authority as a

source of information. The way a person views authority,

on whom he depends to help him form a picture of the

 

48Ibid., p. 40.

49Ibid.

 

-34-

world he lives in, is also a part of his belief struc—

ture. Rokeach feels that the more closed—minded person
will tend to be overudependent on authority figures

and will fail to separate EBB: the authority says from

the authority figure as an individual.

 

In testing the hypothesis that relatively high
dogmatic (closed~minded) individuals are unable to
separate what (the message) is said, and who (the source)

is saying it, Powell conducted a study which demonstrated

 

that "closed—minded individuals are less able to dis—
tinguish and evaluate independently the source of a
message and the content of a message than are open—minded
individuals."50
Tedrick, in discussing the findings of Powell,

states: "The findings may indicate that some 'adopters'
could be Operating out of blind faith to some authority
figure whom they fully trust as having the right answer."51

Some implications of the above are obvious. If

early adoption of a given innovation is carried out

 

OFredrick Powell, ”0pen— and Closed—Mindedness
and the Ability to Differentiate Source and Message,"
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. 65
(1962), p. 63.

1William Tedrick, "Personality and Innovativeness,"
unpublished manuscript written for Communications 470,
Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan,
no date.

-35-

by the closed—minded, as a result of depending on some
authority figure, then critical adaptation or the neces—
sary refinements of an innovation may not be carried
out so that this innovation becomes maximally effective.
This might explain in part the "discontinuance"52 of
some innovations for otherwise illogical reasons.
Miller, for example, in looking at certain innovations
which had taken place at a large university, found

that in one department the use of programed instruction
lost its impetus even though ”there appears little
doubt that the approach used [programed instruction]

is effective in reaching objectives defined by the

department."53

While no firm conclusions could be
reached in this case it is noted in the report that
"one of the realities of the situation that must be
recognized is that leadership of the programing exper—
iment, and of the department, rested primarily in a
single individual under the former chairmanship," and
that this leadership changed during the course of the

experiment.54

2See pp. 89—93, Rogers, Diffusion of Innovation,
09- cit., for a discussion of this phenomenon.

5 .
3Miller, op. cit., p. 123.

 

54.
Ibid., p. 131.

 

 

—36—

The effect of authority upon innovativeness was

explored by Jamias and Troldahl who looked at open—

 

and closed—mindedness in relation to a "value for inno—
vativeness." It was hypothesized that in a situation
where the milieu was such that innovativeness was an
accepted value, closed-minded persons would innovate

at the same rate as open-minded persons. The results

of their study show:

 

The relationship between dogmatism and a
person's general innovativeness seems to
hold only in social systems having a low
"value for innovativeness”. In social
systems having a high value for innovative—
ness, low and high dogmatics were about
equally innovative. 55

No effort was made in this study to determine if
the quality of the innovation was different between
the open— and the closed—minded individual. This fac—
tor of quality has received little attention in the
diffusion literature although some researchers are aware
of the problem. As Jamias and Troldahl point out:

No finding suggested what could be done

in speeding up change among relatively
open—minded individuals @11a.social
setting where there exists a high "value
for innovativeness”]. At most, the pos—
tulate of the belief systems theory that
they tend to act rationally on the merits
of the Object of judgment could be assumed.

_________________
55
_ Juan F. Jamias and Verling C. Troldahl, Dogmatism2
Effigiiigpy and General Innovativeness, unpublished
manuscript, Michigan State University, no date, p. 16.

-37-

From an educational philosophy viewpoint,

changes effected through this process would

be more desirable than the changes occur—

ring with regard to closed—minded individuals.

It would preclude overadoption which could

well occur among closed—minded persons.

(underlining added) 56

The "desirability” of the educational changes that
occur are, of course, subject to analysis based on
satisfying both stated and unstated needs of those
involved in the system, and in meeting the objectives
set forth in the system.

The problem is stated in a more precise way by
Jones and Fairman when they attempt to identify skill
and knowledge requirements as a factor in systems design:
"Development of the Personnel Subsystem requires that
task analysis information include detailed description
of the human performance requirements . . . this means
that the stimulus end of the task should be examined
as carefully as the response end, and that the prov
cesses that the job incumbent must perform between
stimulus and response should also be considered in
57

identification of skill and knowledge requirements."

Some research evidence points to the fact that

\———._

56Ibid., p. 14.

7
John D. Folley, Jr., Human Factors Methods for
§l§2§ligéiiflfla The American Institute for Research under

Office of Naval Research Contract No. NONR—2700(00),
1960, p. 53.

 

 

 

 

 

-38-

belief systems do affect problem—solving ability.
Rokeach states the theory to be tested when he suggests:

The more closed a person's everyday system,

the more difficulty he should encounter in

solving problems within a new system. Or,

to put it the other way around, the more

difficulty a person has in switching over

to a new system, the more closed must be

the organization of his present system. 58

Rokeach researched his theory with the Joe Doodlebug
problem.59 Essentially the Doodlebug problem consists
of a miniature cosmology which involves beliefs not
employed in the everyday world. Joe Doodlebug can and
cannot do a number of things, for example: Joe may
jump in only four different directions: north, south,

east, and west m— he cannot jump diagonally. Once Joe

starts in any direction, he must jump four times in

 

that direction before he can switch directions. He
cannot crawl, fly, or walk —— only jump; he can jump
very large distances or very small distances; he cannot
turn around.

The subjects are told that Joe gets to some food
but they are not told how he arrives there. They must
determine what the conditions were that allowed JOe to

reach his food. In the course of arriving at the correct

 

58Rokeach, op. cit., p. 172.

9See pp. 171—181 for a complete description of
the Doodlebug Problem, Rokeach, op. cit.

 

 

-39_.

decision they must first overcome three beliefs gen—
erally held in everyday life: (1) The facing belief ——
Joe does not have to face the food in order to eat it;
(2) The direction belief ~- Joe is trapped facing north,
but he can change direction by jumping sideways and
backwards; and (3) The movement belief —— since Joe has
to jump a specified number of times in one direction
before he can change direction, subjects have to realize
that Joe may have stopped in the middle of a sequence

of jumps.

After overcoming these beliefs the subjects then
integrate these new beliefs into a new belief system.
The time needed to overcome previously held beliefs,
as well as the time needed to synthesize these beliefs
into a solution of the problem shows that "subjects with
relatively closed systems, as measured by the Dogmatism
Scale, take longer to solve the Doodlebug Problem than
do subjects with relatively open systems."60 Continued
study of the relationship between belief systems held
by individuals and their ability to solve problems
Suggests that there is a strong correlation.

0f further importance, however, is whether this
same problem—solving ability is seen in groups of people

“*—

6ORokeach, op. cit., p. 213.

 

 

.40_

as they work together. Conway studied several aspects
of problem—solving as related to "the effects on
decision—making in a group when the belief systems of
group members were similar . . ."61 Three of these
aspects were (1) interaction within the group, (2)
amount of time to solve a problem, and (3) the degree
to which synthesis took place in overcoming certain
beliefs within the problem. Conway found:
1. PreO [ppen-mindedl groups interacted for
a significantly greater proportion of
time during the problem—solving period

than did the PreC [closed-minded] groups.

2. The PreO groups took significantly less
time to solve the first . . . problem

than did the PreC groups.

3. It was found in the synthesis phase of
problem solving that the PreO groups
took significantly less time to solve
problem one after overcoming one, two,

and all three beliefs than did the PreC

62
groups.

.-_______________
61James A. Conway, Problem Solving in Small Groups

as a Function of "Open-Minded" and "Closed—Minded" Behavior;

Some Implications for Development of Administrative Theory,

unpublished doctoral dissertation, State University of

New York, Albany, 1963, p. 136.

62See Conway, pp. l39~l4l, for a complete analysis
Of results.

 

 

 

 

-41-

It was pointed out by Conway that, based on the
results of the study, group problem-solving is, in some
respects, a function of the personalities that compose
the group. Evidence by Conway suggests that inter—

action, while an important variable for the problem~

 

solving group, was not a sufficient condition for
determining the answer to a problem. Interaction lead—
ing to creative solutions was only found in groups of

openmminded people, and these people took significantly

 

less time in arriving at those conclusions, even though
facing a problem where they had to overcome established

beliefs.

 

The possibility of being able to predict the effi—
ciency of group activity is quite important. When teachers
are confronted with problems that require new systems of
operation, and therefore a modification of their belief
system, the initial interaction of a group could well spell

success or failure for a new teaching—learning system.

Faculty Attitude Towards Educational Media

Two broad classes of research in the educational
media field have been identified by Hovland, Lumsdaine,

and Sheffield.63 The first class is called "evaluative"

 

63c. I. Hovland, A. A. Lumsdaine, and F. D. Sheffield,

Experiments on Mass Communication, Princeton, New Jersey:
Princeton University Press, 1949.

 

 

-42-

and merely assesses the effects of a particular existing
instrument, or compares its effects with those of tra—
ditional instructional techniques. Research in this
category tends to apply only to a particular instrument
and thus has limited generalizability.

The second broad class of research is called "sci—
entific" and involves controlled manipulation of specific
factors. This kind of research seeks to test hypotheses
for the sake of building a usable science of instructional
effects; that is, it seeks to develop a tested body of
propositions or theory.

Travers reaches a similar conclusion: "Two dif—
ferent approaches can be taken to the study of factors
that influence the effectiveness of the transmission of
information through audiovisual devices."64 The first
approach described by Travers involves a study of par—
ticular audiovisual instructional materials; the second
approach "is that of studying problems related to the
transmission of information through the auditory and
the visual channels but with very simple materials,
that is to say, with materials which are much less

complex than those which have been developed for instruc—

tional purposes."65

‘—

4Travers, op. cit., p.
65

2.01.

Ibid., p. 2.01.

 

 

-43-

This dichotomy is also seen when looking at studies
of faculty attitude toward the use of media. Either
faculty attitudes are dealt with on an intuitive level
by change agents, or else other factors (such as the
press of student influx) override the opportunity to
involve faculty at any depth.

Probably the best attitudinal documentation has
been in the CCTV arena. McKeachie finds, for example,
". . . one of the most interesting outcomes of the
studies of student attitudes toward television instruc—
tion is that they tend to reflect those [attitudes] of
the proctors in the viewing rooms."66 Evans also finds
that ". . . instructors assigned for discussion sections

consciously or unconsciously convey their pwp hostility
toward ITV as a teaching medium."67

In an effort to modify or change faculty attitudes
toward instructional television (ITV), Evans identified

from a large group of faculty at a Midwestern university

some 55 faculty members who were the most favorable to

 

66W. J. McKeachie, "Procedures and Techniques of
Teaching: A Survey of Experimental Studies," in The
American College, N. Sanford, editor (New York: John
Wiley and Sons, 1962), p. 351.

 

67Richard I. Evans, The University Faculty and
Educational Television: Hostility, Resistance, and
922292, Title VII Report, Grant No. 741015, 1962,
University of Houston, p. 13.

 

 

 

 

-44_

ITV, and some 65 faculty members who were the most
hostile to ITV. Using Festinger's theories of cognitive
dissonance68, Evans studied the attitude shift of those
faculty who were most hostile, when they were "selected
to participate in an ostensibly intensive improvement

of teaching program which included an evaluation of the
video tape recorder for selfmimprovement of teaching
based on actually taping individual course presentations
with the assistance of the university's television

.69

production staff. This group of hostile faculty

provided the nucleus for the observation of potential
attitude change in an "egominvolving," "forced compliance"

h
situation, as suggested by Festinger's theory of cogni—
tive dissonance:

An analysis of responses to the pre~ and post—
experiment interviews, the Osgood instrument,
the TV production coordinator's report .‘. .,
and personal reports prepared by the subjects,
revealed dramatic modifications of their
attitudes toward ITV in a generally more
favorable direction. One of the two depart—
ments, in fact, elected to change their pref
Vious decision and present a telecourse, while
the other began to use taped efforts as a
standard portion of regular courses. 70

 

68Festinger and Carlsmith, "Cognitive Consequences

 

 

of Forced Compliance," Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 58 (1959), pp. 203—210.
69

Evans, op. cit., p. 100.
70

Ibid.

 

 

-45-

Another researcher, concerned with the problem
of in-service development of teachers in the media
field, studied the relation of prior attitude and
teachers' acceptance of media. Ramsey states the
problem in these terms:

When these new {instructionail ways involve
utilization of the newer educational media,
reluctance may be caused by many factors;
i.e., fear of an unknown procedure, threat
to established ways of teaching, uncertainty
about the uses of strange machinery and
materials, doubts about the supposed advan—
tages of the newer media, or incompatibility
with the teacher's philosophy of education.
Since these forms of reluctance or resist-
ance may be very subtle, supervisory per—
sonnel have few techniques for assessing the
degree and amount of unfavorable pp sym—
pathetic attitudes toward curriculum change
in general, or toward the utilization of

new educational media for instructional
purposes in particular. 71

In an effort to determine the exact nature of
resistance to the use of educational media by teachers
in the instructional program, Ramsey examined two cate—
gories Of personnel. The first of these were: "Those
Persons who by self—designation indicated themselves to
be workers in the audiovisual field, and who had affili—

ated with a national professional association for the

. ' ' ll
advancement of audiov1sua1 concepts in education.

 

71Ramsey, op. cit., p. l.

721bid., p. 2.

 

 

 

—46—

The second group, which acted as a comparison group,
consisted of: ”Those persons primarily in the teaching
profession as full-time teachers, principals, super—
visors, and other curriculum workers who had identified
themselves professionally with an association devoted
to supervision and curriculum development problems."73

Ramsey assumed that while those identified as
curriculum workers would not necessarily be opposed to
the use Of media in instruction, there would be sig—
nificantly different mean scores on a measurement of
attitude toward the uses of media than for that group
which was identified as having professional affiliation
with an audiovisual organization.

Ramsey, using an item analysis procedure, developed
an instrument to measure attitudes toward the use of
media as a part of his research design for testing
differential attitudes among the groups:

The research design utilized a simple ran—

domized analysis of variance along three

dimensions: (1) gmppg categories within

the audiovisual organization; (2) gmgpg

Categories within the curriculum organiza—

tion; and (3) pgpggpp the audiQVisual

groups and the curriculum groups on each
item. 74

 

73Ibid., p. 3.

74Ibid., p. 10.

 

 

-47-

The mean square ratio between the groups mentioned
has an F distribution. Subsequently an F ratio was
developed for the groups within each occupational cate—
gory and also between the two broad organizational cate—

gories. Tests of significance (at the F level) were

.99
made, and it was determined whether an individual item
had significant variance along any one of the three
dimensions mentioned above.

From his research, Ramsey identified test items
which could distinguish AV groups, one from the other;
which could distinguish curriculum groups, one from
the other; and which could distinguish AV groups from
curriculum groups.

he main finding for Ramsey was that those involved
in curriculum had significantly different mean scores
on his instrument for measuring attitudes toward the
uses of newer educational media than did audiovisual
workers. The important finding of the study related to
the present research was that: "The research provided
an instrument useful in discriminating between individuals
possessing attitudes hostile to or in sympathy with the

uses of newer educational media for instructional pur—

poses."75

 

EEEQL’ p. 12°

 

 

 

—48-

Subsequently, the work by Ramsey was used by two
researchers who were interested in examining the atti—
tudes of teachers towards one specific medium, that of
instructional television.

Guba and Snyder, in studying the attitudes of
teachers toward the use of television, conceptualized
that teacher attitudes might fall into two possible
categories: "specific attitudes toward instructional
television, and more generalized attitudes toward the
new media generally, e.g., teaching machines, films,

slides, tapes, etc."76 The New Educational Media

 

1

Acceptance Inventory (NEMA) was developed from Ramsey‘s
work by Guba and Snyder to measure the latter attitude.
The results of the Guba and Snyder study raise

some interesting questions. The data collected with

 

the NEMA show that users of instructional TV have a
"substantially and significantly more favorable atti-
tude toward the newer educational media than does the

non—using group."77

This must be viewed in light of
the fact that teachers frequently had little, if any

say, about the use of television in their classrooms.

 

76Guba and Snyder, op. cit., p. 59.

77Ibid., p. 62.

149_

While no attempt at causality is made by Guba and
Snyder, they do suggest that ". . . we can be more
inclined to the idea that the use of ITV does produce
more favorable attitudes as the subjects lteacherfl
begin through experience to understand the potential

and utility of the new media."78

SUMMARY

Technologists in the field of education point
to mounting evidence which suggests that education is
rapidly becoming more like other segments of our soci—
ety; that technology is asserting a force both from
within and from without education; and:

. . . American education, considered as a

culture in transition, is now beginning the

take—off stage into a high—order, high—

energy culture, and that it is the first

educational system in the world to reach

this stage. 79

Technology is defined in the cultural milieu as being

a focus whereby problems are critically defined within

 

 

the framework of scientific control, and where solutions

to the problems assume the availability of tools across

discipline lines. These tools include systems analysis,

 

78ijd., p. 62.

79Finn, op. cit., p. 6.

 

 

-SO-

and the necessary man~machine~materials complexes which
are designed for meeting the defined objectives drawn
from this analysis.

It is suggested that the force of technological
impact can be seen in the concept of change: "A planning
approach to social change, we have argued, has become

."80 Educators are beginning to sense

a necessity . .
that traditional change processes are being circumvented
by forces outside the discipline. Considerable energy
is being inserted into the traditional educational pro—
cess with the result that old patterns of innovation
difquion are becoming less valid. 0

The diffusion of scientifically designed curricula
(a fairly new phenomenon) is accelerating at an expo~
nential rate with the main impetus for the curriculum
design coming from those who are professionally engaged
in the area. The difference between the two cultures —-
academic and professional —- grows greater as scientists
are able to state in behavioral terms the preparation
needed for their disciplines, and are able to obtain
funds for developing curricula which will achieve this

preparation.

OBennis, Benne, and Chin, op. cit., p. 18.

 

 

 

_51_

Those who work with the use of media in the educa—
tional process must identify teachers who are most
receptive to the use of new educational tools, and who
can change their presently held belief systems. Research
evidence suggests that the open—minded person is more
apt to embrace new ideas, will more profitably interact
with others towards the creative solution of problems,
and is more apt to come up with creative solutions to
problems in a shorter time.

The attitude of faculty toward the use of media
is seen as crucial if media are to be used well. The
attitude a faculty member holds is reflected by the
students working with him.

The following chapters of this study will suggest
that the facets of pers0na1ity described above can be
seen in relation to actual classroom practice. Hypothe-
ses will be tested for evidence that faculty who are
open—minded, and faculty who hold a favorable attitude
towards the use of media, act differently in the teach—
ing process than those faculty who are closed—minded

and who do not view media with a favorable attitude.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter III

PROCEDURES

This study is concerned with the problem of devel—
oping predictive measures with which a media specialist
can evaluate the potential for the acceptance by faculty
of innovations in the teaching—learning process. As
previous sections have indicated, faculty who have used
educational media can be expected to differ in measurable
ways. This study selected a particular type of educa—
tional media, graphics, and compared faculty who used
this component of instruction with a similar group of
faculty who did not.1

The two groups were then administered two instru—
ments to determine whether these instruments could
differentiate, on the basis of scores, faculty who were
active users of graphic materials.

Graphics served as a useful variable in this study
of educational technology for two reasons. First, the

x“..—

1In interviewing "non—users", it was found that
few faculty admitted to pg use of graphic services.
The decision was made to consider faculty non~users
if they had used graphic services nine or fewer times
in the past year.

-52-

 

 

 

 

 

ml
and

are

con
pos
pos

the

 

availability of data from the Audiovisual Center (now

named Instructional Media Center) made possible lists

of faculty who had engaged the services of media tech:

nologists in order to obtain teaching materials. Second,

and more important, faculty who use graphics usually

are involved in the design of the specific materials

to be used for teaching. More thought and time needs

to be expended for the use of graphics than for most

media which are available to the average teacher.
Graphics, as defined for the faculty in this study,

consist of such media as slides, charts, flannel boards,

posters, and overhead transparencies. Although it is

possible to include'dmechalkboard in the area of graphics,

the chalkboard was deliberately excluded from the list

of graphics tools in the questionnaire since its use

seldom involves the services of media technologists.

Plan of the Study

 

This study makes use of two groups. One group,
users of graphics services, was selected from the total
population of faculty who were billed for graphics ser—
Vices during the fiscal year, 1963—64, in the Audio—
visual Center at Michigan State University. Because

this study is concerned with the use of graphics in the

 

 

 

 

-54-

instructional process, users are further defined as ‘
faculty members who have been responsible for teaching

at least nine credit hours during the 1963—64 academic

year. Users were identified as to department, rank,

age, highest degree held, length of service at Michigan

State University, and whether more than half of their

teaching has been at the graduate or undergraduate

level.

Non—users of graphics services, the second group,
consist of faculty members matched with the user group
on the variables mentioned above but who had used
graphics in their teaching nine or fewer times during
the l964~65 academic year. Finally, the frequency of
use of graphics was determined by a questionnaire given
to the faculty prior to their responding to the instru_

ments discussed below.

 

Members of both groups were contacted by telephone.
A short explanation of the study was given (see Appendix
III) and an appointment arranged so that the instru—
ments could be administered in person. After the appoint—
ment was confirmed, subjects were coded by number to
reduce the chance that the researcher would introduce
personal bias.

Both the Dogmatism Scale and the New Educational

Media Attitude inventory were double scored by hand,

 

 

155-

and the final scores from these instruments, plus data

from the information questionnaire, were punched into

IBM cards for analysis by the CDC 3600 computer.

Selection of the Faculterarticipants

 

The selection of faculty who participated in the
study essentially involved four steps: (I) assumed
users of graphics were identified from the billing
records of the AV Center; (2) faculty members from this
group were eliminated who had not taught at least nine
credit hours; (3) matching criteria data were obtained
for the user group; and (4) faculty not involved in
step one were matched to faculty obtained from the
first three steps.

The first step involved examining the records of
all graphic orders placed in the graphics department
of the Audiovisual Center for the academic year 1963—64.
Since information was available on the billing forms
as to the type of graphics services ordered, faculty
could be omitted who ordered services not relevant to
onncampus instruction. This included materials such
as signs and posters for "Farmers Week", art work for
publications, the mounting of athletic photos, materials

prepared for the MSU Board of Trustees reports, and

 

 

 

 

 

-55_

framing of pictures for office walls.

Graphics materials which were considered relevant
to classroom instruction included such items as flan—
nel boards, TV cards, special projection boxes (for

use in programed instruction), diazo—produced handout

 

sheets, 2" x 2" and 3%" x 4" slides, and overhead
transparencies. This selection served as a means of

increaSing the possibility that faculty contacted were

 

indeed users.

The result of Step 1 was a list of faculty who
had placed billable orders through the Audiovisual
Center which involved materials judged to be for use
in onucampus classroom instruction. The N for this
group was 124.

In Step 2, the list of faculty obtained above was

 

examined in light of their teaching load for the 1963—64
academic year. This information was obtained from the
MSU Office of Institutional Research. Faculty members
not carrying at least nine credit hours of instruction
were dropped from the list.

The third step involved obtaining criterion data
for matching purposes. The criteria were department
affiliation, age, length of service at Michigan State
University, present rank, and highest degree held.

This infonnation was obtained from the Office of

 

 

 

 

_57_

University Services. This data, in the form of IBM

cards, was for all faculty members employed by the

University for the 1964—65 academic year. Faculty no

longer with the University were dropped from the list.

The N then became 78.

The fourth step involved matching faculty based
on the criteria stated above. The first matching cri-
terion was department affiliation. Next in importance
were length of service at Michigan State University,

present rank held, age, and highest degree earned.

Faculty were subsequently dropped from the list

for the following reasons: (1) there was no one in the

department who could be matched with a selected indi—
vidual (a department consisting of a single individual

or else all members in the department had used graphics);
(2) members of the experimental or control population
were not available due to travel or leave of absence;

or (3) members Of the control population had resigned

from the staff and additional names were not available

to replace them. Steps (1), (2), and (3) further reduced

the N to 27 pairs. During the period of data collection

the unaVailability of faculty, inaccurate records of

use of graphics, and a refusal to take one of the instru—

ments reduced the N finally to 18 pairs.

 

 

 

 

 

-58_

In summary, data were collected from two groups

of available faculty members. The first group repre—

sented all possible "users" of graphics based on pre—
determined criteria. The second group represented

"non—users" of graphics, selected by matching each of

the users with another in the same department on the

basis of the matching criteria.

Instruments Used in the Study

Three instruments were used in this study: the

Rokeach Dogmatism Scale, the New Educational Media

Attitude inventory, and an information questionnaire.

Only the Dogmatism Scale and the New Educational Media
Attitude inventory were used in hypotheses testing.
The information questionnaire was develOped to provide
data necessary for specifying the experimental and
control groups.

The Rokeach Dogmatism Scale was used for measuring
the extent of open or closed belief systems. The scale
is constructed in such a way that a high score indicates
a relatively dogmatic (closed—minded) personality, and
a low score a relatively non—dogmatic (openuminded)

personality.

The scoring procedure for the Dogmatism Scale was

 

 

 

 

-59_

developed by Rokeach.2 Individuals responding to the

scale indicate disagreement or agreement with each item

on a scale ranging from -3 to +3. The neutral (0 point)

response is omitted in order to force subjects to dis-

agree or agree with the items. This scale is converted

for scoring purposes to a l e 7 scale. The total score

is the sum of scores obtained for all items on the test.

The particular form used in this study was developed

from the Rokeach Form E, 40 item test. The modifica—

tion of this test by Troldahl and Powell3 reduced the

number of items from 40 to 20 to facilitate the use of

the Dogmatism Scale in field studies.
The ZOmitem scale was found to have a cOrrelation

of .95 with the 40eitem scale and a correlation of .94

in a cross-validation study. In a study by Childs in

which 755 teachers were administered the short form,

a random sample with split-half reliability techniques

produced a reliability coefficient of .66.5

 

2Milton Rokeach, The Open and Closed Mind, pp. cit.,

pp. 87—89.

3Verling C. Troldahl and Fredric A. Powell, "A
Short—Form Dogmatism Scale for Use in Field Studies."
An unpublished paper written for the Communications
Department, Michigan State University, East Lansing,

Michigan, no date.

4Ibid., p. 6.

5John W. Childs, A Study of the Belief Systems Of
Administrators and Teachers in Innovative and Non-
Innovative School Districts, Unpublished doctoral dis—
sertation, Michigan State University, 1965.

 

 

 

 

-60i

The second instrument used in the study being
reported is the New Educational Media Attitude inventory

(see Appendix II). Although the original instrument

was designed to test the hypothesis that "Curriculum

and supervisory personnel, and audio-visual workers,

have significantly different mean scores on a measure—
ment of attitude toward the uses of newer educational
media,"6 the outcome of the study was that "The research

provided an instrument useful in discriminating between
individuals possessing attitudes hostile to or in sym—

pathy with the uses of newer educational media for

instructional purposes.”

This instrument was subsequently used by Guba and
Snyder in their Research and Evaluation on MPATI Tele—

casts.8 They conceptualized that the attitudes of the

teachers under study would fall into two broad cate—

gories: ". . . specific attitudes toward instructional

television, and more generalized attitudes toward the

new media generally . . ."9 It was the more generalized

attitudes toward media that were measured with the

6Ramsey, o . cit., p. 3.
7

Ibid., p. 12.
8 .
Guba and Snyder, op. Cit.

9Ibid., p.59.

 

 

 

~61-

instrument developed by Ramsey. Guba and Snyder found,
however, that:

The original form of the instrument was

judged unsuitable for direct use because

its terminology seemed oriented toward the

older audionvisual devices and because

some of the item content was deemed

unsuited to the audience at hand. Accord-

ingly, the number of items was reduced,

and those items which were retained were

rewritten to give a wider and more current

meaning to the items. 10

Guba and Snyder, in their study, used 23 items.
All items were used intact except that the word "students"
was substituted for the word "children" in questions 7,
ll and 18 of their version of the instrument. The final
form of this instrument is shown in Appendix II.

All scoring was done on a sixupoint Likert scale,
ranging from a "l m agree strongly" to "6 w disagree
strongly." Items phrased negatively (to avoid response
set) were reverse scored in arriving at a total atti—
tude score. All such reverse—scored items are coded
with the letter "R" in the appendix copy. High total
scores for subjects indicate an unfavorable attitude
low scores indicate a favor—

toward educational media;

able attitude.

 

10Ibid., p. 59.

 

 

 

 

‘62..

Finally, an information questionnaire was developed
to obtain data about the groups being studied. The
questionnaire was designed to answer the following

questions:

1. Did the faculty member know about the

graphics department?

2. Had he used graphics in teaching, and

if so, how often?

3. What percent of the graphics used by
him were prepared by the MSU graphics

department?

4. Was the faculty member satisfied with
the product obtained from the graphics

department as to quality and cost?

 

5. Were sufficient monies available to

the faculty member for this service?

6. Was the course taught most often by the
faculty member a graduate or undergraduate
course, and what was the average enroll-

ment of this course?

Additional information was obtained on the ques—

tionnaire which was not directly related to the hypotheses

 

 

 

 

 

—63—

to be tested:

1. Could the faculty member have graphic—
type materials prepared within his own

department?

2. Is there a library of graphics materials
available to the faculty member, and if
not, would he like to have such a library

in his department?

3. How many professional trips were taken
by the faculty member within the last
year? (This was asked to assess the

"cosmopoliteness" of the faculty member.)

Statistical Analysis

In the test of the first hypothesis (generally
stated, that "open—mindedness" is correlated with a
favorable attitude toward educational media), the two
samples were combined and responses on the Dogmatism
Scale and the New Educational Media Attitude inventory
were Cdnpared across all 36 subjects used in the study.
The assumption was made that the combined samples were
representative of the total population of faculty mem—

bers from which the two samples were drawn. The nature

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

of this population will be discussed in Chapter V.

The correlation statistic used to test the first
hypothesis was the Pearson Product-Moment Correlation
Coefficient.

Correlation coefficients may be computed

in various ways, depending upon the nature

of the data. The most common is the

Pearson Product—Moment Correlation Coef—

ficient. Such a correlation coefficient

takes into account not only the individual's

position in the group, but also the amount

of his deviation above or below the mean. ll
The correlation coefficient is particularly useful as
a descriptive statistic for a set of data for the rea—
sons stated by Hayes: "It is not necessary to make
any assumptions at all about the form of the distribution,
the variability of Y scores within X columns or arrays,
or the true level of measurement represented by the
scores in order to employ linear regression and cor—
relation indices to describe a given set of data."12

To test the next two hypotheses regarding users
and non—users of graphics services (generally stated,
these hypotheses are that users will (1) be more open—

minded as measured by Dogmatism Scale scores, and (2)

have a more favorable attitude toward educational media

 

llAnne Anastisi, Psychological Testing, New York:
The MacMillan Company, 1954, pp. 103—104.

 

12William L. Hayes, Statistics for Psychologists,
New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1963, p. 510.

 

 

-65..

as determined by the New Educational Media Attitude
inventory scores), a chi-square test was employed for
its ease of computation and for the few assumptions
which it requires. Faculty were designated high or

low dogmatics, and high or low in attitude toward
educational media, by dichotomizing on the means of the
two scores.

Siegel says of the chi—square: "The technique is
of the goodness—of—fit type in that it may be used to
test whether a significant difference exists between
an observed number of objects or responses falling in
each category and an expected number based on the null
hypothesis." (Siegel's underlining)l3 The exact sta—
tistic used in this part of the study comes from Hayes14
and uses Yates correction for continuity for a somewhat
better approximation of the exact multinomial probability.

The way in which these statistics were used to test

the hypotheses of this study will be described in the

next chapter.

‘—

3Sidney Siegel, Nonparametric Statistics for the
Behavioral Sciences, New York: McGraw—Hill Book Company,
1956, p. 43.

14

 

William L. Hayes, op. cit., p. 596.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter IV

ANALYSIS OF RESULTS

A compilation of the findings of the study is
reported in this chapter: (1) the relationship between
scores obtained with the New Educational Media Attitude
inventory and the Rokeach Dogmatism scale; (2) the
difference of scores obtained on the Rokeach Dogmatism
scale for groups of faculty who are considered users
and for those who are considered non—users of graphics
in teaching; and (3) the difference of scores found with
the New Educational Media Attitude inventory for groups
of faculty who are considered users and for those who

are considered non—users of graphics in teaching.

FINDINGS OF THE STUDY

The first hypothesis examined in this study has

been stated:

H : There will be a correlation between
belief system scores indicating "open—
mindedness" and media attitude scores
which indicate "favorable” attitude

towards the use of media in education.

-66..

 

 

 

 

 

_67_

The following null hypothesis was tested:

H : There will be no correlation between
the scores obtained with the New
Educational Media Attitude inventory
and the scores obtained with the
Rokeach Dogmatism scale.

Symbolically: H : r = O.
0I

To determine the relationship between the two
sets of scores, a Pearson Product-Moment correlation
was computed. This computation assumes that homogene—
ity of variance exists. This was tested with the F
test. The assumption of homogeneity of variance can
be assumed if a ratio of the variances does not pro—
duce an F which exceeds the critical value of F at the
.05 level of confidence.1 An F of 1.26 was obtained.
An F of 1.80 or larger is required to reject the hypo—
thesis that the variances are homogeneous. Homogeneity
Of variances can therefore be assumed.

A correlation of .29 was obtained for the two
sets of scores which represented open—mindedness and

favorable attitude toward media. To test the significance

 

lAllen L. Edwards, Experimental Design in Psycho—

logical Research, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston,
1960, pp. 104—106.

 

 

—68—

of this correlation a t test of the hypothesis of zero
correlation was computed.2 A t of 1.74 (df = 34) was
obtained. The probability of t = 1.69 is .05 for a
one—tailed test. The null hypothesis is therefore
rejected at the .05 level of significance and evidence
was obtained for the hypothesis that there is a cor—
relation between those who are open—minded in their
belief systems and those who are favorable toward the
use of media in the teaching—learning process.

The second hypothesis to be examined in this study

is:

H : Faculty members who use graphics in
the teaching process are more open in
their belief systems than similar fac—

ulty who do not use graphics in teaching.
The following null hypothesis was tested:

HO : The proportion of faculty having low
2
dogmatism scores (i.e., open—minded
belief systems) will be the same for

users of graphics as for non—users of

graphics.

To test the null hypothesis that users and non—

users of graphics have the same proportion of high and

 

2Ibid., p. 78.

 

 

 

 

—69—

low dogmatics, a chi—square test was employed. By
dichotomizing on the means of the two groups the fol—

lowing table was produced:

TABLE I. —— Distribution of faculty with open and closed
belief systems for users and non—users of
graphics in teaching.

 

 

 

 

 

Faculty _ High Dogmatics Low Dogmatics
Users 7 11
Non—users 8 10

 

Following the procedure set by Hayes which incor-
porates Yates’correction for continuity3, a chi—square
value was obtained which was not significant. The null
hypothesis cannot be rejected.

The third hypothesis to be examined in this study

is:

H : Faculty members who are considered users
of graphics in teaching will have a more

favorable attitude toward all educational

 

3Hayes, op. cit., p. 596.

 

 

 

-70-

media than faculty members who are
considered non—users of graphics in

teaching.

The following null hypothesis was tested:

HO : The proportion of faculty having favor—
3

able media attitude scores will be the
same for users of graphics as for non—

users.

To test the null hypothesis that users and non—
users of graphics have the same proportion of favorable
and unfavorable educational media attitude scores, a
chi—square test was again employed. By dichotomizing
on the means of the two groups the following table was
produced.

TABLE II. —— Distribution of faculty with favorable and
unfavorable educational media attitude

scores for users and non—users of graphics
in teaching.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Faculty Favorable Unfavorable
Users 12 6
Non—users 5 13

 

 

-71-

The chi—square obtained (again, using a formula
with correction for continuity) was 4.02. At the spec—
ified level of significance, alpha = .05, a chi—square
equal to or greater than 3.84 with one degree of freedom
was needed to reject the null hypothesis. Since the
obtained value was greater than 3.84, the null hypo—

thesis was rejected.

Discussion of the Findings

Two of the three hypotheses examined in this study
were supported by the data. The first hypothesis dealt
with the relationship of belief systems to attitudes
toward educational media. It was found that for all
faculty examined there was a significant correlation
between scores representing open— and closed—mindedness
and scores representing a favorable or unfavorable atti—
tude toward educational media. Faculty who were open—
minded in their belief systems tended to be favorable
in their attitude toward the use of educational media.

Several factors must be taken into consideration
when examining these findings. First, of course, is
the small number of faculty involved. Although the
obtained correlation was significant at the .05 level

Of confidence, any attempt to generalize must take into

 

 

 

 

 

_72_

consideration that the faculty obtained through the ,
procedures discussed earlier were selected from a pop—
ulation of faculty members who requested services from
the graphics department of the Audiovisual Center.
Examination of demographic data shows that this popu—
lation is not representative<of a university faculty.
For example, of the faculty identified by Step 2
(faculty on the user list who had taught at least nine
hours), 67 were of the Professor rank, 10 were of the

Associate Professor rank, and one was a research asso—

'2
4y
f

ciate. Of the 36 faculty who were among the group
matched with non—users of graphics, there were 34 with
doctoral degrees and only two with master's degrees.
This compares to the university average of about 52%
of the faculty with doctoral degrees and 46% with master's
degrees.4

Another factor which must be considered in examin—
ing the data is that the New Educational Media Attitude
inventory may betsubject to a problem common to attitude
questionnaires. Rokeach terms this the ”attitude—toward
situation" and "attitude-toward—object" dilemma. In

discussing the problems of adequate attitude measurement,

h

4This data was obtained from a random sample of
the complete faculty data card deck; sample N = 185.

 

 

 

 

-73_

Rokeach states: "Unfortunately, however, only the latter
kind of attitude [attitude—toward—object] has thus far
been the focus of Operational definition and measure—
ment, even though attitudes have typically been more
broadly defined as predispositions toward situations

as well as toward objects."5

Apart from the semantic problem wherein "attitude
object" has a rather specific meaning for members of
the measurement profession, the situation exists where
the feeling of an individual toward specific tools
(i.e., a 16mm projector) is not the same as a more gen—
eral attitude toward an abstract "system" of educational
media.

For example, the instructions for the New Educa—
tional Media Attitude inventory read: "Radio, television,
motion pictures, slides and filmstrips, the phonograph
and tape recorders, certain types of teaching machines
and programed learning methods —— all are examples of
what might be termed "Newer Educational Media."6 While
certain teaching situations are implied in this defini—
tion of educational media, the emphasis is on the machines

or "objects" as opposed to being on the method or

 

5Rokeach, Op. cit., p. 12.

6See Appendix II.

 

  

 

 

 

_74_

"situation.”

What would be useful is an attitude inventory
which would attempt to measure an individual's feeling
about the use of systems of instruction which involve
man—machine—materials organization.

The second hypothesis examined in this study dealt
with those teachers defined as users of graphics and
attempted to predict that they would be more open in
their belief systems than similar teachers who did not
use graphics. The data did not support this hypothesis,
even though the data were in the predicted direction.

Several factors might be considered in looking at
the lack of significant findings. First, the two groups
are small with a consequent high standard error of
estimate.

Second, there may be uncontrolled concomitant
variables Operating within one group which are masking
the relationship between Open—closed—mindedness and
extent of use of graphics. For example, if the user
group alone is examined between belief system and atti-
tude toward media, an r of .47 is Obtained (significant
at the .05 level). This is compared to an r of .10
for the non—user group, which is not significant.

Obviously, the correlation obtained in testing

the first hypothesis reflects a co-relationship present

 

 

 

-75...

primarily in the user group. No conclusion is offered
that a difference between groups would have been found
if the correlation existed in both groups, but only that
there are uncontrolled variables which are affecting

the groups differentially.

The third hypothesis examined dealt with the atti—
tudes of faculty who were identified as users of graphics
in the teaching process, and their scores obtained on
the New Educational Media Attitude inventory. The
hypothesis stated that users of graphics would be more
apt to have a favorable attitude toward all educational
media than non—users, and the data clearly support this
contention.

An important aspect of testing this hypothesis
was extending the validation of the New Educational
Media Attitude inventory, for as Ramsey suggests:
"Another fruitful area of research would be to attempt
to correlate attitude findings with some sort of criti—
cal incidents or with behavioral phenomena regarding
the uses of newer educational media." The "critical
incidents" in the present study involve the identifica—

tion of faculty who use media. These faculty are shown

 

7Ramsey, 2p;_gip., p. 20.

 

 

 

to have a more favorable attitude with the Ramsey
instrument than do similar faculty who are considered
non—users. Although this will be discussed further

in Chapter V, it is reasonable to assume at this point
that additional confidence can be assumed in using the
New Educational Media Attitude inventory to measure

the attitudes of teachers toward educational media.

Summary of the Results

 

Three hypotheses were examined in this study.
The first dealt with the relationship of belief system

scores to attitudes toward educational media:

H ' There will be a correlation between
belief system scores indicating "open—
mindedness" and media attitude scores
which indicate "favorable" attitude

toward the use of media in education.

The null of the hypothesis was rejected at the .05

level of significance and evidence was obtained for the
hypothesis that there is a correlation between those
who are open—minded in their belief systems and those

who are favorable toward the use of media in the teaching

process.

 

 

._77._

The second hypothesis examined dealt with two
identified groups Of faculty. The first group was
considered users of graphics in teaching; the second
group was similar in respect to certain identified
criteria but the faculty were considered non—users of
graphics in teaching. The hypothesis to be examined

was:

H : Faculty members who use graphics in
the teaching process are more open in
their belief systems than similar
faculty who do not use graphics in

teaching.

Data did not support this hypothesis.
The third hypothesis to be examined again used the
two groups of faculty identified as users and non—users

of graphics. The hypothesis was:

H : Faculty members who use graphics in
the teaching process will have a
more favorable attitude toward educa—
tional media than similar faculty

who do not use graphics in teaching.

The null of the hypothesis was clearly rejected

at the .05 level of significance and evidence was obtained

 

 

 

 

-78..

for the hypothesis that faculty who use graphics will
generally have a more favorable attitude toward educa—
tional media than similar faculty who do not use graph—

ics in teaching.

 

 

 

Chapter V

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This study examined the relationship between two

constructs: open— and closed—mindedness and attitude

toward educational media. Hypotheses were tested for

 

evidence that faculty who are open—minded, and faculty
who hold a favorable attitude towards the use of media,
act differently in the teaching process than those

faculty who are closed—minded and who do not View media

with a favorable attitude.

SUMMARY

Three hypotheses were formulated:

H1: There will be a correlation between
belief system scores indicating "open—
mindedness" and media attitude scores

which indicate "favorable" attitude

toward the use of media in education.

H : Faculty members who use graphics in

the teaching process will be more open

-79-

 

—80—

in their belief systems than similar
faculty who do not use graphics in

teaching.

H : Faculty members who use graphics in
the teaching process will have a more
favorable attitude toward educational
media than similar faculty who do not

use graphics in teaching.

This study made use of two faculty groups. One
group, identified as users of graphics, was selected
from the total population of faculty teaching at least
nine credit hours during the academic year who were
billed for graphics services during the fiscal year,
1963—64, by the AV Center at Michigan State University.
Members of the user group were also identified as to
department, rank, age, highest degree held, length of
service at Michigan State University, and percentage
of teaching at the graduate or undergraduate level.

The second group consisted of faculty members
matched with the user group on the above criteria except
that these faculty had used graphics in teaching nine
or fewer times during the 1964—65 academic year. Faculty
of both groups were given three instruments: The Rokeach

Dogmatism scale, the New Educational Media Attitude

 

_8]__

inventory, and a questionnaire designed to obtain data
about the samples.

The first hypothesis dealt with the correlation
of belief systems with attitudes toward educational
media. It was predicted that faculty open—minded in
their belief systems would tend to be favorable in their
attitudes toward educational media. This was found to
be true to the extent that scores from the belief system
instrument correlated with scores from the educational
media attitude instrument.

The second hypothesis stated that those faculty
who were identified as users of graphics would be more
open in their belief systems than similar faculty who
do not use graphics. The null of this hypothesis could
not be rejected. 7 —

The third hypothesis dealt with attitudes toward
educational media by the two groups of faculty. It
was predicted that those faculty using graphics would
have a more favorable attitude toward all educational
media than faculty not using graphics. The data clearly

support this hypothesis.

 

 

—82-

CONCLUSIONS

This study has dealt with two broad constructs,
and the relationship between them for specified groups
of individuals. The first of these is generally called
open— and closed—mindedness, which was measured by the
Rokeach Dogmatism Scale. The second of these is termed
attitude toward educational media, measured by the New
Educational Media Attitude inventory.

Any discussion of the relationship of the two
instruments needs to keep two major factors in mind.
First, these instruments deal with relatively broad,
abstract ideas about how people feel and believe. 3
Because of this, any specific conclusions will inevitably
be broad and abstract in that they cannot represent more
specificity than is inherent in the original instruments.

Second, while two of the three hypotheses involved
groups differentiated on the basis of observable dif—
ferences in overt behavior (the demonstrated use of
graphic services), it must be recognized that the direct
relationship between psychological constructs and behav—
ior is subject to many intervening factors. These
factors may support the inclination of an individual to
behave in accordance with the construct, or these fac-

tors may stifle the predisposition.

 

 

—83—

Given these limitations, and given the fact that
this study represents but a small effort to understand
the process of innovation and planned change, the fol—
lowing conclusions seem reasonable.

The first Of the conclusions reached in this study
is that faculty who are Open—minded are more apt to
have a favorable attitude toward the use Of educational
media in the teaching—learning process than faculty who
are closed-minded.

The knowledge that there is a relationship between
belief systems and attitude toward media suggests sev-
eral areas which might be the basis for further research.
Conway, for example, found, in a study cited previously,1
that the process Of interaction in problem solving was
facilitated by having groups of all open-minded people.
If a group of only Open-minded faculty was given the
problem of devising new instructional techniques, would
they arrive at more efficacious solutions in less time
than would a group of faculty that consisted of indi—
viduals with both open— and closed—belief systems?

Could such a group of Open—minded faculty provide better

 

1James A. Conway, Problem Solving in Small Groups
§§_a Function of "Open Minded" and "Closed Minded"
Behavior: Some Implications for DevelOpment of Admin—
istrative Theory, unpublished doctoral dissertation,
State University of New York at Albany, 1963.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

guidance for the media coordinator with respect to
developing educational systems than an "average" group?

The media change agent might also want to examine
innovation diffusion patterns with respect to groups
of faculty having different belief systems. Theory
underlying the dogmatism scale would suggest that open—
minded faculty would be more receptive to the possi—
bility of new educational systems and would be more
constructive in their criticism relative to the effec—
tiveness of the system.

It is also suggested that the media attitude instru—
ment may need closer scrutiny if used in further research.
the question of attitude toward

As indicated earlier,

"media” can be viewed in at least two ways. First,

media can be perceived as aids to instruction. That
is, the materials are used as a supplement to the exist—
ing teaching pattern. Second, media can be perCeived
as being a complementary part of the instructional

process wherein the materials used are an essential

part of the learning process.

One can speculate that the open—minded person would
be able to accept both viewpoints, whereas the closed-
minded person would reject media as a complementary

part of the instructional process.

 

 

 

 

 

 

_85~

The second of the hypotheses tested in this study
stated that a group of faculty identified as users of
graphics would be more open in their belief systems
than a similar group of faculty who were considered
non—users. The difference between the groups was not
significant.

The second major c0nclusion drawn from this study
deals with the third hypothesis tested. This hypo—
thesis stated that a group of faculty identified as
users of graphics would be more favorable in their
attitude toward all educational media than would a
similar group of faculty who were considered non—users
of graphics. The data clearly support this hypothesis
and it seems reasonable to conclude that faculty who
use graphics in teaching would also have a favorable
attitude toward the use of other media in the classroom.

This conclusion is reached in spite of some unan—
swered questions concerning faculty perception about
the role of graphics in relation to class size. Both
the groups classified as users and non—users had large
and small classes, but the data suggest that users tend
to be involved in teaching larger classes. Whether the
responsibility for teaching larger classes caused the
teacher to consider graphics as a source of communica-

tion, or whether those prone to assume responsibility

 

 

 

 

Of

II

med

pla

tin

in

ac
r
1

TDLS

 

 

 

~86~

for large classes are also disposed toward the use of
media, cannot be answered at this time.

This same "chicken and egg" question was also a
problem for Guba and Snyder in their study of teachers
who used instructional television: "We have seen some

data from the Background Questionnaire which tend to

 

support the idea that the choice of ITV was Often not

 

up to the teacher . . ."2, and yet in spite of this lack
of choice on the part of the teachers, ". . . we may
note that the using group [of ITV] displays a substan—
tially and significantly more favorable attitude toward
the newer educational media than does the nonmusing

group."3

Implications for the Media Change Agent

 

The present research should be useful for persons

 

playing a number of roles within the educational set—
ting. These roles will be referred to in this discussion

in terms of the "media change agent," an individual

 

2Egon B. Guba and Clinton A. Snyder, Instructional
Television and the Classroom Teacher, RF Project 1367,
Final Report, Research Foundation, Columbus, Ohio (Ohio
State University), April, 1964, p. 62.

3Ibid.

 

 

 

(

ment

shou

ning

sh01

att
an

fir
sor

in

of
ar

Fe

H1

 

-87....

(or institution) concerned with designing and imple-
menting man—machine—materials educational systems.

The two attitude instruments utilized in this study
should prove heuristically useful to media change agents.
As the change agents become involved in systems plan—
ning and systems development, it is suggested that they
should investigate further the constructs of Open— and
closed—mindedness and media attitude.

For example, having a tool for measuring faculty
attitude toward educational media gives the researcher
an opportunity to study questions such as: "Which comes
first, the attitude or the media?" Research of this
sort might extend the work of Evans cited previously
Sin which he used Festinger's "forced compliance" theory
to explain a shift of faculty attitude. In his work,
Evans found that faculty who had a strong negative
feeling against ITV and who were exposed to the video
tape recorder as a research device for the improvement
Of their teaching habits later changed their attitude
and used the device to teach courses by television.
Festinger's theories may also explain in part the
findings of Guba and Snyder mentioned above.

Another possibility for the use of known media
attitudes involves the change agent's role as a "prob—

ability expert."

 

 

 

 

 

We propose that a midpoint between unre-

alistic demands for predictability and

control and defeatist acceptance of the

all—too-true realities Of unanticipative

consequences is the position for the

change agent to occupy. He must become

a "probability expert". He should be a

gambling man, who eschews ”sure bets" and

"long shots” simultaneously. But, like a

professional gambler, he should seek the

bets that give him a probability edge over

pure chance. 4

Whether the media specialist could use knowledge
of media attitudes to identify those faculty most recep-
tive to the use Of new systems in order to shorten the
time lag Of acceptance for a particular medium, or
whether he might use this knowledge to pinpoint pockets
of resistance so that greater gains might be made with
respect to a particular problem, are questions amenable
to research. What knowledge of attitudes toward media
does at the moment is to enable the media change-agent
to place his bets with probability on his side.

It is suggested that this is true with the construct
open—closed-mindedness as well, although the questions
which remain unanswered both in theory and practice
are formidable. For example, to what extent does the

belief system of the change agent affect his relation—

ship with the faculty with whom he works? What is the

 

4Warren G. Bennis, Kenneth D. Benne, and Robert
Chin, The Planning of Change, New York: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston, 1962, p. 197.

 

 

 

 

 

r02

mi:

wi

mi

I16

(I:

-89-

role of leadership and authority in pulling non—open—
minded persons into an effective working relationship
with open—minded persons? How can indices of open—
mindedness be obtained by the change agent without anta—
gonizing faculty by asking them questions which of
necessity tend to be personal?

One can speculate that the construct of open—
mindedness might be used in somewhat the same manner
as is the construct intelligence. The teacher in a
classroom need not know a numerical score from some
I.Q. measurement instrument to realize the relative
learning potential of the child. The teacher is, how—
ever, aware of the construct intelligence and has become
sensitive to the actions and reactions of the child
which suggest to the teacher ways of involving the child
in the learning process.

It may be, therefore, that the media change agent
will want to become intuitively sensitive to the con—
struct open—mindedness so that he can jpdge the actions
and reactions of the persons involved in the change
process without having to resort to test instrument
scores. Not only would knowledge of this construct enable
him to know his own limitations in examining new ideas,
but he would be able to make maximal use of observation

concerning faculty activities and interests.

 

 

 

 

 

-90-

If factual data on faculty are available or can easily
be obtained, then the research being reported suggests
immediate steps that can be taken by the media change
agent. First, the New Educational Media Attitude
inventory scores might be used to identify those fac-
ulty who are potential innovators in the area of media.
This would have particular relevance for the solution
of problems involving time deadlines.

For example, large classroom instruction precludes
the traditional use of the chalkboard. The data suggest
that faculty who have used the 2” by 2" slide projector
for small classroom use are more apt to use the overhead
projector for large classroom instruction. D

It is further suggested that the faculty member
who has had experience with a variety of media in the
classroom is more apt to have a favorable attitude toward
the use of media in a ”complementary” sense. That is,
he would be less resistant to the use of closed—circuit
television wherein his teaching itself is mediated.

While it is true that simple observation itself
may provide the media change agent with sufficient
insight to arrive at these conclusions, the value of the
instrument scores is twofold: first, in a system of
any size it is difficult for the change agent to keep

in mind all of the faculty with whom he works; and

 

second
center
quentl

agent

Summa

with

attii
tions
who:

room

facu

tior

tud<

USe<

med

the

and

 

-91-

second, many faculty rely on sources outside the media
center for both materials and equipment, and subse—
quently do not come into contact with the media change

agent.

Summary Of the Implications

 

The two conclusions coming from this study deal

 

with (l) the relationship between belief systems and
attitude toward media, and (2) the use of the New Educa—
tional Media Attitude inventory to identify faculty

who find the use of media tools desirable in the class—
room.

First, there does seem to be a relationship between
faculty who were identified as open—minded and faculty
who were favorable toward the use of the newer educa—
tional media.

Second, the response of faculty on the media atti—
tude inventory indicates that this instrument can be
used to identify faculty who find the use of certain
media tools desirable in the classroOm, specifically
the use of graphics. (I-

It is suggested that knowledge Of open—mindedness
and attitudes toward media can be used by the media

change agent in planning for the utilization of media.

 

-92-

Such information might be used in selecting faculty

for the develOpment of educational systems. Where such
systems are already in existence, sensitivity to belief
system and media attitude relationships might facilitate

the involvement of particular faculty members.

Recommendations for Further Study

 

The first recommendation is that this study be
replicated with improved methodology to determine if
the investigated relationships are universal or specific
to the group examined. Also, because graphics repre—

' sents but one group of media, the study should be
replicated using other media in an attempt to determine
the relationship of dogmatism to users of other tools
of education.

Because there is a subtle but quite important
distinction between the use of media as an aid or supple-
ment to instruction, and the use of media as a comple—
mentary or integral part of the instructional process,
it is recommended that an instrument be develOped which
would permit the identification of faculty holding
these different attitudes. Such knowledge, for the
media change agent, would facilitate the development

of educational systems and suggest to him the kinds of

 

 

 

-93-

strategies best suited for individual faculty members.
It is suggested that further studies be conducted
which would address themselves to the problem of media
attitude formation. How does exposure to media affect
the development of media attitudes? Answers to this
question might suggest several strategies to the media
change agent. Another part of the same question may be,
what is the relationship between perceived need for
media (as in large classroom instruction) and attitude

formation?

 

As indicated previously, the media change agent
may want to develOp indices of opennmindedness which
do not depend upon the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale. Although
faculty will submit to this questionnaire for research
purposes, the problems of largenscale administration
may involve questions of faculty autonomy. Research
directed at finding these indices may involve correla—
tional studies, as with the present study, or it may
involve sensitivity training on the part of the media
change agent so that he can more adequately judge the
dogmatism of the individual faculty member with whom
he comes into contact.

It is strongly recommended that studies be con—
ducted in the area of open-mindedness and problem—

solving which involve the use Of media in instruction.

 

 

-94-

Considerable evidence suggests that educational tech—
niques must change, and change rapidly, in order to
maintain quality instruction and yet incorporate new
methods of instruction and adequately use new technolo~
gies which press from outside the field of education.
The value of working with faculty who bring a minimum
Of irrelevant biases to a problem, and who can act on
relevant information received from the outside on its

own intrinsic merits, seems clear.

 

 

 

 

-95_

BI BL I OGRAP HY

 

 

 

 

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anastisi, Anne. Psychological Testing. New York:
The MacMillan Company, 1954.

 

Anderson, Charnel. Technology_in American Education,
1650-1900, U.S. Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare, #OE-34018. Washington, 1962.

 

Bennis, Warren G., Kenneth D. Benne, and Robert Chin;
The Planning Of Changp. New York: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston, 1962.

 

 

Cartwright, Dorwin and A1Vin Zander. Group Dynamics.
Evanston, Illinois: Row, Peterson and Company,
1953.

 

Childs, John W. A Study of the Belief Systems Of
Administrators and Teachers in Innovative and
Non~Innovative School Districts, An unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University.
East Lansing, Michigan: 1965.

Conway, James A. Problem Solving in Small Groups as
a Function Of ”Open Minded" and "Closed Minded"
Behavior: Some Implications for Develgpment
of Administrative Theory, An unpublished doctoral
dissertation, State University of New York at
Albany, 1963.

DeCecco, John P. Educational Technology. New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1964.

 

Edwards, Allen L. Experimental Design in Psychological
Research. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston,
1960. '

 

Evans, Richard I. The University Faculty and Educational
Television: Hostility, ResistanceJ and Change.
A Title VII Report, Grant Number 741015. Houston,
Texas: The University of Houston, 1962.

Festinger, L. and J. M. Carlsmith. “Cognitive Consequences
Of Forced Compliance," Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology, 58: 203—210 (1959).

 

 

 

 

 

-97-

Finn, James D. Occasional Paper No. 6, Studies in the
Growth of Instructional Technology, I; Audio—
Visual Instrumentation for Instruction in the
Public Schools, 1930—1960, A Basis for Take—Off.
A report prepared for the National Education
Association, Washington, D.C., 1962.

 

 

 

Folley, John D. Jr. Human Factors Methods for System
Design. The American Institute for Research
under Office of Naval Research,Contract No.
Nonr‘2700(00), (1960).

 

Getzels, Jacob W. and Herbart A. Thelen. "The Classroom
Group as a Unique Social System,” The Dynamics
of Instructional Groups. N. B. Henry, editor.
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1960,

 

 

 

pp. 53~82.
Greenwood, Ernest. "The Practice of Science and the
Science of Practice," The Planning of Change.

 

Bennis, Benne and Chin, editors. New York:
Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1962, pp. 73—82.

Guba, Egon G. and Clinton A. Snyder. Instructional
Television and the Classroom Teacher. RF Project
1367, Final Report. Research Foundation, Columbus,
Ohio: Ohio State University, April, 1964.

 

 

Halpin, Andrew W. and Don B. Croft. The Organizational
Climate of Schools. Cooperative Research Project
No. 543, U. S. Office Of Education, 1962.

 

 

Hayes, William L. StatistiCs for Psychologists. New
York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1963.

 

Homans, George C. The Human Group. New York: Harcourt,
Brace and Company, 1950.

 

Hovland, C.I., A.A. Lumsdaine, and F.D. Sheffield.
Experiments on Mass Communication. Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1949.

 

Jamias, Juan F. and Verling C. Troldahl. Dogmatism,
Tradition, and General Innovativeness. An

 

 

unpublished mannecript, Michigan State University,
no date.

 

 

—98-

Jaques, Elliott. ”Social Therapy: Technocracy or
Collaboration?", The Planning of Change. Bennis,
Benne and Chin, editors. New York: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston, 1962, pp. l62~168.

Jensen, Gale. "Introduction: The Newcomer," The Dynamics
of Instructional Groups. N. B. Henry, editor.
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1960,

pp. 3-10_

Johnson, Donald W. ”Title III and the Dynamics Of
Educational Change in California Schools,” Innova—
tion in Education. Matthew B. Miles, editor.

 

New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers
College, Columbia University, 1964, pp. 157—182.

Katz, Elihu. ”The Social Itinerary of Technical Change:
Two Studies on the Diffusion of Innovation,"
Human Organization. 20: 70~82.

 

 

Marsh, Paul E. "Wellsprings of Strategy: Considerations
Affecting Innovations by the PSSC,” Innovation
in Education. Matthew B. Miles, editor. New
York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College,
Columbia University, 1964, pp. 249-267. -

 

 

 

 

McKeachie, W.J. ”Procedures and Techniques of Teaching:
a Survey of Experimental Studies," The American
College. N. Sanford, editor. New York: John
Wiley and Sons, 1962, pp. 312~364.

 

Miles, Matthew B. Innovation in Education. New York:
Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia
University, 1964.

Miller, Elwood E. Instructional Systems Development ,
An unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan
State University, 1965.

Oliver, J.W. History Of American Technology. New York:
Ronald Press, 1956.

«Powell, Fredrick A. "Open and CloSed Mindedness and
the Ability to Differentiate Source and Message,"
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 65,
(1962), pp. 6lw64.

Price, Derek J. deSolla. Science Since Babylon. Clinton,
Massachusetts: COlonial Press, Inc., 1961.

_ ___

 

 

 

-99-

Ramsey, Curtis P. A Research Project for the Development
of a Measure to Assess Attitudes Rggarding the
Uses of New Educational Media. Title VII Project
Number 492, Grant #740095. Nashville, Tennessee:
Division of Surveys and Field Services, George
Peabody College for Teachers, 1961.

Rogers, Everett M. Diffusion of Innovation. New York:
The Free Press of Glencoe, 1962.

, ”Innovations: Research Design and Field
Studies," Paper presented at the Conference on
Novel Strategies and Tactics for Field Studies
Involving New Educational Media, Ohio State
University, Columbus, Ohio, May 10~12, 1965.

 

 

Rokeach, Milton. The Nature of Attitudes. A position
paper to be published in the International Ency—
clopedia of the Social Sciences, no date.

, The Open and Closed Mind. New York: Basic
Books, Inc., 1960.

 

Ryans, David G. Systems Analysis in Educational Planning.
TM 1968. Unpublished paper of the System Develop~
ment Corporation. Santa Monica, California,

July 9, 1964.

Schools for the 60's, National Education Association,
New York: McGraw Hill Company,l963.

 

Schramm, Wilbur. ”Learning from Instructional Tele—
vision," Review of Educational Research, Vol. 32,
NO. 2, (1962), pp. 154—159.

”What We Know About Learning From Instructional
Television," Educational Television ~ The Next
Ten Years. Stanford: The Institute for Communi—
cations Research. 1962, pp. 52~76.

 

 

Siegel, Sidney. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavi—
oral Sciences. New York: McGraw~Hi11 Book

Company, 1956.

 

Skinner, B.F. "Why Teachers Fail," Saturday Review,
Vol. XLVIII, No. 42 (October 16, 1965) pp. 80—102.

 

 

—lOO-

Tedrick, William. "Personality and Innovativeness,”
An unpublished manuscript written for Communica—
tions 470, Michigan State University, no date.

Travers, Robert M. W. Research and Theopy Related to
Audiovisual Information Transmission. Interim
Report for the U. S. Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare, Washington, D.C.: Office of Education
Contract No. 3~20~003, 1964.

Trow, William Clark. ”Role Functions of the Teacher in
the Instructional Group,” The Dynamics of Instruc—
tional Groups. N. B. Henry, editor. Chicago:

The University of Chicago Press, 1960. pp. 30—50.

 

 

Troldahl, Verling C. and Fredric A. Powell. "A Short—
Form Dogmatism Scale for Use in Field Studies,"
An unpublished paper written for the Communications
Department, Michigan State University, East Lansing,
Michigan, (no date).

Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary . G. & C. Merriam

 

Company, Springfield, Mass., 1961.

 

 

 

 

v- ”‘1?”

—lOl~

APPENDIX I

 

e102-

OPINIONS ON SOCIAL AND PERSONAL QUESTIONS

We are interested in what the general public thinks and feels
about a number of important social and personal questioner. The best
answer to each statement below is your pgrsonal-OPinion.-We have tried
to cover many different and-opposing points of View; youfmay'find
yourself agreeing strongly with some of the statements,.disagreeing
just as strongly with others, and perhaps uncertain about others;
whether you agree or disagree with any statement, you can be sure

that many peOple feel the same as you do.

 

wlO3m

Mark eaCh statement in the blanks under the statement according
to how much you agree or disagree with it. Please mark-every
statement. Use the following depending on how-you feel in each
case. Check only one blank.

Exgpple:

 

 

 

I DISAGREE I DISAGREE I DISAGREE I AGREE I AGREE ON! I AGREE
VERY MUCH ON THE WHOLE A LITTLE A LITTLE THE WHOLE“ VERY MUCH
3 2 ' l l 2 3

In this complicated world of ours the only way we can know what's
going on is to rely on leaders or experts who can be trusted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 2 1 1., 2 3

My blood boils whenever a person stubbornly refuses to admit he's
wrong.

 

”

3 2 1 1 2 ‘ 3

 

 

 

 

There are two kinds of people in this world: those who are.for the
truth and those who are against the truth.

 

 

 

 

3 2 l l 2 3

Most peOple just don't know what's good for them.

 

#

3 2 . l l 2 3

 

 

 

 

Of all the different philosophies which exist in this world there
is probably only one which is correct.

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 2 l l 2. .3

The highest form of government is a democracy and the.highest form
of democracy is a government run by those who are most intelligent.

 

 

#
W

3 2 l l 2 3

 

 

The main thing in life is for a person to want to do something
important.

“
—— ” _——
3

3 2 l l 2

a
I

 

 

I'd like it if I could find someone who would tell me how to solve
my personal problems. 1

fl ”

 

m

3 2 l l 2 3

 

 

Most of the ideas which get printed nowadays aren't worth the paper
they are printed on. - -

M

2 3

 

 

 

3 2 l l

 

 

I DISAGR]
VERY MUCI
3

Man on h:

 

3

It is on.
life beci

3
Most peo

3

To compr
usually

“

3

It is of
until on

-

3

Them-.8

future t

-

3

The Unit

\

3

In a dis
times tc
_____

3
While I
is to b‘

\

3

EVen th¢
it is U]
p°litic;
\

3
It is b‘

T

w104:

 

 

 

 

I DISAGREE I DISAGREE I DISAGREE I AGREE I AGREE ON I AGREE
VERY MUCH ON THE WHOLE A LITTLE A LITTLE THE WHOLE VERY MUCH
3 2 l l 2 3

Man on his own is a helpless and miserable creature.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 2 l l 2 3

It is only when a person devotes himself to an idEal or cause that
life becomes meaningful.

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 2 l l 2 3

Most peOple just don't give a "damn" for others.

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 2 l l 2 3

To compromise with.our political opponents is dangerous because it
usually leads to the betrayal of our own side.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 2 l l 2 3

It is often desirable to reserve judgement about what's going on
until one has had a chance to hear the Opinions of those one reSpects.

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 2 l l 2 3

The present is all too often full of unhappiness. It is only the
future that counts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 2 l l 2 3

The United States and Russia have just about nothing in.common.

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 2 l l 2 3

In a discussion I often find it necessary to repeat myself several
times to make sure I am being understood.

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 2 l l 2 3

While I don't like to admit this even to myself, my secret ambition
is to become a great man,.like Einstein, or Beethoven,.or ShakesPeare.

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 2 l l 2 3

Even though freedom of speech for all groups is a worthwhile goal,

it is unfortunately necessary to restrict the freedom of certain
political groups.

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 . 2 1 1 2 3

It is better to be a dead hero than to be a live coward.

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 2 1 1 2 3

—¥—_

 

-IOS_

APPENDIX II

 

 

 

 

During tr
aids hays
ciently e
arily, t1
were forr
teachers
and film
tain typ
methods

the ”New

In Ameri
concerni
sent var

Please 1
ment wit
to be cc
there a1
Space be
code:

wlOSw

NEWER EDUCATIONAL MEDIA

During the past twenty years or so, many new teaching
aids haVe been developed. Some of these are suffi~
ciently elaborate to change, or even to replace temporéy
arily, the classroom communication processes which

were formerly pretty much limited to students and
teachers. Radio, television, motion pictures, slides
and filmstrips, and phonograph and tape recorders, cer—
tain types of teaching machines and programed learning
methods ~~ all are examples of what might be termed

the "Newer Educational Media." (NEM)

In American education today, there is some controversy
concerning these NEM. The following statements reprem
sent various points of View on this question.

Please indicate the extent of your agreement or disagree-
ment with each statement. Please don't make efforts

to be consistent or to select the ”right answer" ——

there are none. Simply enter the proper number in the

space before each sentence according to the following
code:

Agree strongly
Agree moderately
Agree slightly
Disagree slightly
5. Disagree moderately
6. Disagree strongly

#Lpn2H
O

l. The widespread use of the NEM will revolutionize
the process of instruction as we know it now.

2. The possible uses of the NEM are limited only

by the imagination of the person directing
the usage.

3. The wide resources of the NEM stimulate the
creative student.

There are no educational frontiers in the NEM ~—
just new gadgets.

 

 

Most students see the NEM mainly as entertainment,
rather than as education.

 

 

 

 

Please '11
ment wit'

—107~

Please indicate the extent of your agreement or disagree-
ment with each statement.

 

 

 

 

R 6.
7.

8.

9.

10.

R II.
R 12.
R 13.
R 14.
R 15.

 

. Agree strongly
Agree moderately
Agree slightly
Disagree slightly
Disagree moderately
Disagree strongly

OVU'lrh-LJQRJI—I

Most teachers lose the gratification of per—

sonal accomplishment when the child is taught
by machine.

Use of the NEM constitutes a major advance in
providing for individual differences in the
learning needs of students.

Much wider usage of the NEM is needed.

The vicariousness of learning by NEM aids is
not conducive to the most effective learning.

If surplus funds exist which could be spent
only for supplementary books or for more NEM
equipment, the latter should be chosen.

Students can learn the basic value ofva good
education only when taught by conventional
methods -- not by the NEM.

The problems of getting materials and equip—
ment when you need it, darkening rooms, setting
up the equipment, and otherwise disrupting

classes tend to counteract the value of most
NEM.

The ”authoritative" presentations of most of
the NEM tend to produce an uncritical acceptance
on the part of most students.

The passive quality of learning by NEM is not
conducive to the most effective learning.

The proper student attitudes for effective
learning are not developed as well by the NEM
as by conventional methods of teaching.

 

 

 

 

 

~108-

Please indicate the extent of your agreement or disagree-
ment with each statement.

I. Agree strongly

2. Agree moderately

3. Agree slightly

4. Disagree slightly
5. Disagree moderately
6. Disagree strongly

 

16. Only through the NEM can vicarious learning
experiences be provided in the classroom.

R 17. The expense of most of the NEM is out of all
proportion to their educational value.

 

R 18. The NEM give little opportunity to provide
for the individual differences of students.

 

 

R 19. The personal relationship between teacher and
student is essential in most learning situations.

 

 

R 20. NEM materials are so specific as to have little

adaptability to different teaching requirements
or situations.

R 21. With increased usage of the NEM, the teaching
role may be downugraded to clerical work,

proctoring, grading, and other simple administra—
tive tasks.

 

22. The development of NEM centers in every school
unit should be encouraged and facilitated.

R 23. The NEM do not suitably provide for the special

needs of either slow learners or brighter
students.

 

 

*
Items designated ”R" were designed as "negative"

items and are reverse scored in determining the subject's
attitude.

 

 

~109—

APPENDIX III

—110—

APPENDIX III

FORMAT OF INITIAL TELEPHONE CONTACT WITH FACULTY

Hello, my name is DeLayne Hudspeth. I am a
doctoral student in the educational media program.
Part of my dissertation includes asking randomly picked
faculty members about their attitudes toward the Audio—
visual Center. I would appreciate about 15 minutes
with you to ask some questions about how you feel.
Your name will not be used in my dissertation, however.

Would it be possible to see you some time next week?

 

—lll-

APPENDIX IV

 

-112—

APPENDIX IV

COMPARATIVE DATA FOR USERS AND NON—USERS

Means for Dogmatism Scores, New Educational Media
Attitude (NEMA) Scores, Appointment Date, and Age (as
of 1965).

User Non-User User and
Non—User

 

Dogmatism 61.83 64.72 63.27
NEMA 58.00 71.50 64.75
Appointment

Date 1954 1956 1955
Date of

Birth 47 44 45

 

Correlations Between Users and Non—Users

Dogmatism NEMA Appointment Date of
Date Birth
Dogmatism 1.000 .285 .198 .075
NEMA 1.000 .317. . .313
Appointment
Date 1.000 .649
Date of

Birth 1.000

~113—

Correlations Within the User Group

 

Dogmatism NEMA Appointment Date of
Date Birth
Dogmatism 1.000 .476 .253 .480
NEMA 1.000 .272 .272
Appointment
Date 1.000 .672
Date of
Birth 1.000
Correlations Within the Non—User Group
Dogmatism NEMA Appointment Date of
Date . Birth
Dogmatism 1.000 .103 .125 —.372
NEMA 1.000 .315 .229
Appointment
Date 1.000 .604
Date of
Birth 1.000

 

  

mmllHl

 

APPENDIX V

 

 

~115—

APPENDIX“V

 

I am a graduate student doing work in the audiovisual
area and would like to ask you a number of questions
about 1933 perception as to the role of graphics and
graphic type materials in the teaching process.
Excluding the black board, this would include such
things as slides, charts, posters, overhead trans—
parencies, etc. I do not care what your answer is,

nor will your name be used in my dissertation. I would
like to obtain your honest opinion to the following

questions

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXKXXXXXXXXXXXXKKKXXKKKKKXKKKKKXXXKKKK3E3£3E3E

1. Are you familiar with the graphics department of

the audiovisual center? YES NO

Have you used graphics in teaching within the last
year? YES NO

3. (IF YES) About how many times?

 

 

4. (IF NO) Are there any particular reasons why you
do not use graphics?
(GO TO #11)
5. (IF #2 YES) About what percentage of the graphics
you used were prepared by the AV Center graphics
department? %
6.

(IF ANY, #5) Were you satisfied with the professional
help you received in the graphics department? YES NO

7. (IF N0, #6) Could you explain?

 

 

 

10.

ll.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

~116—

Did you feel that the charges made by the graphics
department were reasonable? YES NO
Why?

 

 

Were you satisfied with the quality of the work?
YES NO

(IF NO, #9) What kinds of things were the cause of

your dissatisfaction?

 

 

Has the amount of departmental money available to

you for graphics been adequate? YES NO

(IF NO, #11) What kinds of graphics would you have

requested if additional funds had been available?

 

 

Which course do you teach the most often? #

 

 

What is the range on the number of students which
you teach in this course, and what would the average

number be? Range to . Average #

—-—————-

I am assuming that you have gone to some professional
meetings within the last year. Do you remember if

graphics were used in any of the presentations?
YES NO

About how many of these trips would you estimate

that you have taken in the last year?

17.

18.

19.

20.

—ll7—

Can you make, or have made, graphic type teaching

materials within the department? YES NO

(IF YES, #17) What kinds?

 

Is there a library of graphic materials available

to you within the department? YES NO

(IF NO, #19) Would you like to see such a library?
YES NO

Next, I would like to give you two short questionnaires.

These will only take about five minutes apiece and you

will find the instructions for each one written on the

first page.

(GIVE THE FACULTY MEMBER THE NUMBERED NEMA AND DOGMATISM
QUESTIONNAIRES)

NOTE: CHECK NUMBERS

 

 

en‘Nfluuub .. 1 m 1. L.

 

   

HICHIGRN STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES
111111111111111111111111111111111
31293103145797