THE IMPACT OF INSTRUCTIONAL TELEVISION ON TEACHING ROLES AND FUNCTIONS

1. Keith Tyler This article is an edited version oJ the paper the author presented at the International Seminar on Instructional Television, Purdue University, October 12, 1961. Dr. Tyler is professor oJ education and director of Communications Workshops and Seminars, The Ohio State University.

MY BASIC CONCERN here is with the teacher at all levels as he confronts television in his own classroom. His role and function in this situation, however, are inextricably bound up with the role and function of the television teacher who shares with him the responsibility of stimulating and nurturing student learning. This paper deals with the division of labor and responsibility between them in their common educational endeavor. Initiating Instructional Television Brings Problems The mere introduction of the television set into the classroom does not, of course, necessarily bring about a traumatic experience for the teacher. If he uses television only occasionally to bring

to pupils a public event such as the meeting of Khrushchev and Kennedy in Vienna or a session of the United Nations, his day-to-day activities are relatively undisturbed and his status is not threatened. Even the once-a-week series to enrich and supplement regular classroom instruction in a given subject raises few problems, particularly if the teacher remains free to use or not use each broadcast as he sees fit. He can continue his usual round of activities, squeezing in the television experience at the expense of some less fruitful activity. His syllabus and teaching plans remain unchanged. But when broadcasts in a given subject are presented two to five times a week, as is typical of ITV, they cannot be accepted casually. Major readjustments by the receiving teacher are involved. The mere prospect of such changes in accustomed classroom routines is disturbing. Even more critical, however, is the apparent threat to the teacher's concept of his basic classroom role. No longer is he the sole master of his school empire. He must share his teaching responsibility with the television teacher who may, indeed, eclipse

[51]

52

AV COMMUNICATION R E V I E W

him in the eyes of his pupils. His basic emotional security is undermined, and he is apt to respond with hostility, opposition, and overt or covert resistance. To overcome this initial opposition to the systematic use of ITV is one of the major tasks facing all agencies as they introduce it in schools and colleges. Acceptance and fruitful use of the medium are dependent upon a receptive attitude by teachers and pupils alike. Since pupils tend to mirror their teachers' reactions to such an innovation, learning itself is affected. Hence, it is of the utmost importance to help teachers make their adjustments to television in minimum time, both to alleviate the psychological and emotional disturbance involved, and to reduce interference with effective classroom learning. Research and experience indicate that most teachers who continue to use television for a considerable period ultimately make their adjustment to it, and become enthusiastic users. But the adoption of such an innovation is unquestionably delayed and limited by the initial unfavorable reactions of many classroom teachers.

freedom still exists at college and university levels, with varying degrees of autonomy at lower levels. Instructional television directed to many classes necessarily limits curriculum autonomy by dictating the broad outlines of subject matter, the sequence of units and topics, and even the relative time to be devoted to each. Even when the televised presentations are restricted to a single university or school system, it is only natural that teachers should resent this restriction upon their teaching freedom, and the most progressive teachers are apt to be the most resentful. In countries with a tradition of local and provincial educational responsibility, the problem is further compounded when regional, provincial, or national instructional television is made available. The innovation appears to represent a standardization of curriculum and teaching which ignores local and regional needs and interests, and smacks of educational totalitarianism. Certainly in this country and in Canada, federal control of education is bitterly opposed, and the "Big Brother" concept of instructional television appears to represent a big step toward such centralization and regimenAdjustments Involved tation. Actually, of course, the teacher's Let us examine the adjustments involved in the systematic use of instruc- autonomy in curriculum matters is already restricted by many factors. The tional television. These consist of (a) the relinquishing of curriculum auto- system of education in the particular nomy and (b) the redefining of the in- country defines some of the limits. structional role and the implied teaching Where education is a national responsibility, a highly centralized system may functions. Relinquishing of curriculum auto- prescribe not only the subjects to be nomy. Teachers at all levels jealously taught, but the textbooks, the order of g u a r d t h e i r p r o f e s s i o n a l a u t o n o m y the topics to be presented, the appropriagainst forces which might erode it. ate teaching methods, and, possibly, even Ideally they want to teach what they the daily assignments. Even where edudeem best, in the sequence that they cational responsibility is delegated to think appropriate, and in the manner states or provinces, there may be rethey feel most effective. Much of this quired courses of study, prescribed text-

MEDIA: THE TEACHER AND TELEVISION

books, and compulsory examination systems. Textbooks themselves have proved so useful that many teachers have long since voluntarily relinquished curriculum control in slavishly following the scope and sequence of the book. For them, at least, using instructional television involves merely the substitution of one type of control for another. As for the freedom to meet the peculiar needs of a state, province, or region, I can speak only for the situation in the United States. Theoretically, there should be tremendous variation from state to state, region to region, and locality to locality, since education is a state responsibility which is delegated, to a great extent, to local education authorities. Actually, however, the basic curriculum of American schools has a degree of uniformity from one section to another which amazes visitors from abroad. Both elementary and secondary schools offer much the same subjects, regardless of the section of the country, and even the grade placement of content materials does not vary significantly. There are some differences in emphases, and there may be additions to the curriculum brought about by local needs, but in the main the differences are rather those in quality and facilities due to varied financial support. Basically, American schools have responded to the broad trends in American society and the demands these have placed upon the schools. In addition, most textbooks are distributed nationally, and they tend to set standard patterns of content and approach. Teacher training institutions serve students from beyond their own state borders, and tend to deal with content and method common to all sections. Ideas, practices, and research findings are shared through

53

professional organizations with their conventions and publications, and through numerous special conferences. Finally, learned societies in the sciences, the humanities, and other content fields make curriculum recommendations which carry considerable weight with local education authorities. Thus, the advisory council on curriculum for the Midwest Program on Airborne Television Instruction was able to find sufficiently common needs and curriculum patterns among the six states to recommend the subjects to be broadcast. And there was already enough uniformity in organization of these subjects to make regional instructional television not only feasible, but a practical reality also. Even our colleges and universities, faced with soaring enrollments and a scarcity of competent instructors, are giving up some measure of professorial and institutional autonomy by offering closed-circuit or broadcast television courses which have been prepared under the auspices of learned societies using the best available resources. It should be clear by now that the systematic use of television does not require teachers at all levels to give up a great measure of curriculum autonomy. Their curriculum freedom is already greatly, and probably sensibly, limited by many factors. But those who have been able wholly to organize their own courses are required by the nature of instructional television to surrender this much to their classroom autonomy. What, then, do they gain in return for this sacrifice? In the first place, the television syllabus must represent the best possible organization of the course for a given grade level. It must be based upon competent curriculum research and authoritative opinion. It must be kept abreast of

54

AV COMMUNICATIONREVIEW

changing trends, emphases, and new subject matter. The teacher must feel assured that in organization and content the television course is markedly superior to his own. In the second place, each television presentation must be more efficient than that the classroom teacher might give, for the TV teacher has much more time to prepare each, and he should be backed up by a team of experts in subject matter and learning theory. Thus, the TV presentation should cover the same ground in less time than a conventional lesson can. In the third place, the television presentation must be more effective. It can use a greater variety of visuals and more extensive and expensive apparatus, and it can call upon authorities and experts where they may be needed. The impact or impression should be greater upon the pupils. Where, then, does the teacher retain sufficient freedom of action to take into account the individual differences from pupil to pupil, class to class, and community to community? He exercises this freedom in the class time not consumed by the broadcast presentations. The appropriate relationship between the time devoted to television and that consumed by other learning activities will probably vary from subject to subject, and even from one grade level to another. We know too little about this at the moment. As teachers become adjusted to the new medium, the trend, I suspect, is toward reducing the time devoted to television presentation, and increasing the time for related classroom and individual learning activities. The disproportionate amount of time at first given to television was, in many instances, due to a failure to recognize the importance of individual and group learning activities

on the one hand, and to recognize the efficiency and impact of the medium, on the other.

Redefining of instructional role and implied teaching /unctions. The introduction of instructional television into the classroom forces the teacher to redefine his instructional role. If he conceives himself fundamentally as a purveyor of subject matter, he is indeed threatened by an imposing rival in the television teacher whose presentations are characterized by authoritativeness, efficiency, and effectiveness. He feels himself reduced in status to a mere vassal who carries out the plans of the "master teacher." Worse, he feels degraded in the eyes of his pupils who may compare him unfavorably to the glamorous figure on the screen. Unfortunately, a high proportion of classroom teachers do spend an inordinate share of their time in doling out subject matter--in telling and showing. In higher education, the lecture or lecture-demonstration is the prevailing instructional activity--laboratories, tutorial systems, discussion groups, and seminars notwithstanding. In secondary schools, teacher-telling and showing is also characteristic to an extent not realized by the teachers themselves. And even elementary school teachers tend to consume more classroom time in talking than do all their pupils added together. When, in a given subject, the purveying role is taken over by the television teacher, what roles remain for the classroom teacher? It is interesting at this point to recall that the introduction of textbooks posed a similar threat to teachers who, until that time, had been essentially purveyors of subject matter. The book could now present content material what si~ifi-

MEDIA: THE TEACHER AND TELEVISION

cant role remained for the classroom teacher? But teachers soon learned to develop appropriate roles in relation to books. Now the teacher needs to rethink and redefine his role in relation to the new medium, television. Basically, the teacher has two professional roles which cannot be discharged by mass media, electronic devices, or teaching machines. He is a manager of learning situations and a counselor o/ individual learners. To discharge these responsibilities adequately requires thorough professional training and experience; it also requires all the available time not consumed in the presentation of subject matter. The teacher must arrange the appropriate situations in which pupils can learn--that is, those in which they can best achieve the desired educational objectives. These aims may involve the entire class, groups within the class, individuals, or even several classes together. The situations may call for practice and drill, for reading and discussion, for research and investigation, for laboratory experimentation, for creative activity in music, composition, or the arts, or for a host of other activities. A variety of media and audiovisual aids may be utilized: radio, tape recorders, motion pictures, language laboratories, reference books and magazines, teaching machines, field trips, museum specimens, and laboratory and shop equipment. The teacher as a manager of learning situations is no mere monitor or disciplinarian. He must know his pupils well enough to be able to diagnose their needs, appraise their growth and progress, and prescribe the appropriate learning situations. He must know his subject matter so thoroughly that he

55

can relate it to effective learning activities. He must have a working familiarity with materials, media, and resources so that he can employ them appropriately. And finally, he must have a grasp of objectives and goals so that he can relate them to his own pupils in terms of appropriate subject matter and learning experiences. One of the principal obstacles to the employment of more varied learning situations in the classrooms is that teachers lack time to plan, arrange, and carry them through. They are typically burdened with the task of presentation itself--of purveying content. It is not alone the time the presentation requires; even more important is the time to plan it. Television, by taking over the main burden of telling and showing, can provide the teacher with more time for individual and group learning activities. As a counselor of individual learners, the teacher assumes a role that has always loomed large in education. The personal approach in teaching was never more important than it is today as society becomes increasingly de-personalized through mass media, urban living, and the changing nature of family life. Rising juvenile delinquency is attributed in part to the loss of emotional security by children who are victims of broken homes, parental neglect, migration of workers, and the tensions, fears, and uncertainties of the world situation. There is no mechanical or electronic device which can play this counseling role in education. Only the classroom teacher can study his pupils, ascertain their needs, and provide the appropriate emotional and intellectual guidance. Here again television can be an active aid. While the television teacher is telling and showing, the classroom teacher

56

AV C O M M U N I C A T I O N REVIEW

can be observing the reactions and symptomatic behavior of his pupils. When he operates as a manager of learning situations, he can provide also for appropriate guidance situations for those who need them most. It is clear that once teachers see their appropriate roles in the classroom as involving basically the management of learning situations and the counseling of individual learners, they no longer look upon television as a threat. The television teacher whose specialty is telling and showing becomes a teammate or partner in the total learning process. The classroom teacher alone is the allround professional who studies his pupils, diagnoses their needs, and provides appropriate learning and counseling situations to enable them to achieve educational objectives. In this he attains his satisfactions, his fulfillment, and his reward through the face-to-face relationships with learners. Implications for Production and the Television Teacher

If these are the appropriate roles for the teachers using television, what are the implications for the producers of such broadcasts and for the television teacher? First of all, as previously suggested, the planning and production process must be of such nature and quality as to justify the sacrifice of curriculum autonomy on the part of receiving teachers. The course syllabus and general approach must be based upon the findings of competent curriculum research and authoritative opinion as represented by appropriate professional and scholarly groups. Accuracy and authenticity must be ensured by the selection of television teachers not only for their on-

camera effectiveness but also for their mastery of subject matter, backed by competent consultants. Course content must be kept up-to-date, particularly in fields of rapid change. Broadcasts should utilize a variety of audiovisual aids to their optimum advantage, and should incorporate other resources not readily available to classrooms when they materially add to effectiveness. These include not only expensive, unusual, and bulky equipment and apparatus, but lively guest authorities, also. Out-of-studio experiences--live or film --which bring a slice of life into the classroom should not be neglected. Finally, of course, the television medium should be used to its fullest advantage; i.e., high standards of technical and artistic production should be maintained. The television teacher, too, must think carefully about his role and functions. He is not a "master teacher" but rather a specialist in television presentation. He is a team member with the classroom teacher, and together they provide the environment for learning. Since he accomplishes only a part of the instructional task, learning takes place only as the broadcast is complemented by group and individual activities on the part of learners. Indeed, the television teacher has the responsibility of setting the stage for these further activities by raising questions, proposing problems, stimulating thinking, and encouraging creative activities. He leaves the broadcast open-ended. He does not present a nice bundle of subject matter neatly tied together at the end, but rather incorporates in his presentation the material that will motivate, enliven, disturb, and stimulate his viewers both during and following the broadcast. What I have suggested is that the

MEDIA: THE TEACHER AND TELEVISION

introduction of instructional television involves severe readjustments on the part of the classroom teacher. He is forced to surrender a measure of curriculum autonomy for the advantage of a better organized course and for the authoritativeness, currency, efficiency and effectiveness in presentation. He is likely to be hostile to television to the degree that he conceives his principal role as that of the purveying of subject matter. If, however, he can redefine his role in highly professional terms as a

57

manager of learning situations and a counselor of learners, he will find that the transfer of responsibility for presentation to the television teacher provides him more opportunity for handling group and individual learning activities9 In consequence, he will derive more personal satisfaction and fulfillment. The producers of instructional television must have a deep concern for the classroom teacher who determines in the long run the success or failure of the entire enterprise.

Fowler on "Pedantic Humor"

we have all of us, except the abnormally stupid, been pedantic humourists in our time. We spend much of our childhood picking up a vocabulary; we like to air our latest finds; we discover that our elders are tickled when we come out with a new name that they thought beyond us; we devote some pains to tickling them further; & there we are, pedants and polysyllabists all . . . . Most of those who are capable of writing well enough to find readers do learn with more or less of delay that playful use of long or learned words is a one-sided game boring the reader . . . . But now & then even an able writer will go on believing that the incongruity between simple things to be said & out-of-the-way words to say them in has a perennial charm; it has, for the reader who never outgrows hobbledehoyhood . . . acquaintance with such labels as pedantic & polysyllabic humour may help to shorten the time that it takes to cure a weakness incident to youth. From A Dictionary o] Modern English Usage, by H. W. Fowler. London: Oxford University Press, 1960. p. 426. 9

.

.

Over-confident Communicator

Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep. Hotspur: Why, so can I or so can any man; but will they come when you do call for them?

King Henry IV, Part I, Act III, Sc. 1, line 53.