Xerox University Microfilms
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
INFORMATION TO USERS This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced. 5. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as received. Xerox University Microfilms 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 75-11,432 STIMPFLE, Nedra Rae, 1941- STUDENT AND TEACHER PREFERENCES OF PHOTOGRAPHS, FILMS, AND TELEVISION PROGRAMS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC SCHOOL EDUCATION. The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1974 Education, secondary Xerox University Microfilms,Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 © 1975 NEDRA RAE STIMPFLE ALL RIGHTS RESERVED STUDENT AND TEACHER PREFERENCES OF PHOTOGRAPHS, FILMS, AND TELEVISION PROGRAMS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC SCHOOL EDUCATION DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Nedra Rae Stimpfle, B.S., M.A * * * * * The Ohio State University 197^ Reading Committeei Approved by Dr, Ftarik Zidonis Dr, Robert W. Wagner Dr, Donald R. Bateman Advisor Department of Education ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS In the future, when I think of the experience of this study, part of my remembering will be of those individuals who, in some way, affected that experience: The many teachers and students from the various public secondary schools in the greater Columbus, Ohio, area who freely and willingly acted as participants in the surveys. The students, Teaching Assistants, and faculty in English education at The Ohio State University in Columbus, Ohio, who participated in both surveys and expressed an interest in the results. My reading committee, Dr, Prank Zidonis, Dr, Donald Bateman, and Dr, Robert W, Wagner, who approved the study and provided critical responses to the writing. Dr, Robert Wagner who was responsible for the initiation of the study and who consistently maintained an intense interest in it. Dr. John Reed who, as both department chairman and friend, constantly reminded me of the importance of finishing. Those women, especially my mother and our friends, who gave me strength through a very necessary and constant support system. ii VITA May 20, 1941............ Born - Tiffin, Ohio 1959.................... Diploma: Upper Sandusky High School, Upper Sandusky, Ohio 1959-61................. Miami University, Oxford, Ohio 1961-63................. B.S. in Education, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 1963-65..... ........... Teacher, Fairmont East High School, Kettering, Ohio 1965-70................. Teacher, Worthington High School, Worthington, Ohio 1971.................... M.A., The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 1971-73................. Teaching Associate, English Education and English, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 1973.................... Instructor, Education and English Depart ments, Skidmore College, Saratoga Springs, New York FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: English Education Studies in Cinema and Photography. Professor Robert Wagner Studies in Folklore. Professor Patrick Mullen Studies in Black Literature. Professor Hortense Thornton TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS....................................... ii VITA.................................................. iii LIST OF TABLES............... ........................ vi Chapter I. INTRODUCTION................................. X II. DESIGN OF THE STUDY.......................... 28 III. THE RESULTS OF THE. PILOT..................... 47 IV. THE RESULTS OF THE.STUDY................ 68 V. CONCLUSIONS: IMPLICATIONS; AND RECOMMENDATIONS.. 120 APPENDIX I. LETTER TO STUDENT TEACHERS.................... 141 II. PILOT SURVEY F0R4........................... 143 III. PILOT TABULATION FORM........................ 144 IV. COLLATION OF THE RESULTS OF THE PILOT.......... 145 V. PILOT FIIM LIST......... 150 VI. TOP-RANKED FIIM5 OF THE PILOT.................. 15S VII. STUDENTS' AND TEACHERS' TOP NINE FIIMS IN THE PILOT...................................... 159 VIII. PILOT TELEVISION PROGRAM LIST................. 160 . IX. STUDENTS' TOP-RANKED TELEVISION PROGRAMS IN THE PILOT...................................... 164 X. STUDENTS' AND TEACHERS' TOPSEVEN TELEVISION PROGRAMS IN THE PILOT........................ 165 XI. STUDY SURVEY FQBM............................ 166 iv Page XII. PHOTOGRAPHS USED IN THE STUDY................ 167 XIII. STUDY TABULATION FORM............................. 1&5 XIV. RESULTS OF THE STUDY PHOTOGRAPH SELECTIONS..... 186 XV. THE PERCENTAGE OF BOTH STUDENTS1 AND TEACHERS' FIRST CHOICE SELECTIONS FOR EACH PHOTOGRAPH 188 XVI. THE PERCENTAGE OF BOTH STUDENTS' AND TEACHERS' OVER-ALL SELECTIONS FOR EACH PHOTOGRAPH....... 189 XVII. CORRESPONDENCE RELATED TO THEATRICAL AND TELEVISION FIIMS............................ 190 XVIII. STUDY THEATRICAL FILM LIST................... 203 XIX. STUDY TELEVISION FILM LIST................... 236 XX. STUDY TELEVISION PROGRAM LIST................ 270 BIBLIOGRAPHY.......................................... 290 I V LIST OF TABLES Page Number of Participants in the Pilot Survey, By School... 30 Number of Participants in the Pilot Survey, By Sex, Age, and Socio-Economic Status of Community............... 31 Number of Participants in the Study Survey, By School... 41 Number of Participants in the Study Survey, By Sex, Age, . and Socio-Economic Status of Community............... 41 Percentage of Student Participation, By Age and Socio- Economic Status of Community........................ 48 Percentage of Student Participation, By School........ 48 Percentage of Teacher Participation, By Sex, Age Assign ment, and Socio-Economic Status of School Assignment.... 50 Percentage of Teacher Participation, By School........ 51 Percentage and Average of Students' Photographs, By Sex, Age, and Socio-Economic Status of Community........... 52 Percentage and Average of Students' Photographs, By Schools........................................... 52 Percentage and Average of Teachers' Photographs, By Sex, Age Assignment, and Socio-Economic Status of School Assignment........................................ 5b Percentage and Average of Teachers' Photographs, By Schools........................................... 56 Average Number of Films Per Student, By Sex, Age, and Socio-Economic Status.............................. 57 Average Number of Films Per Student, By School........ 58 Average Number of Films Per Teacher, By Sex, Age Assign ment, and Socio-Economic Status of School Assignment.... 61 Average Number of Films Per Student, By School........ 61 Average Number of Television Programs Per Student, By Sex, Age, and Socio-Economic Status...................... 62 Table Page 18. Average Number of Television Programs Per Student, By School.......................... 63 19. Average Number of Television Programs Per Teacher, By Sex, Age Assignment, and Socio-Economic Status of School Assignment. ................... 65 20. Average Number of Television Programs Per Teacher, By School....................................... 66 21. Total Number and Percentage of Student Participants, By Sex, Age, and Socio-Economic Status of Community....... 69 22. Total Number and Percentage of Student Participants, By School................................. 70 23. Total Number and Percentage of Teacher Participants, By Sex, Age Assignment, and Socio-Economic Status of School Assignment........................................ 70 24-- Total number and Percentage of Teacher Participants, By School............................................ 70 25. The Top Five Photograph Preferences of Both Students and Teachers, By First Choice Selection.................. 72 26. The Top Five Photograph Preferences of Both Students and Teachers, By Over-all Selection...................... 73 27. The Top Five First Choice Photograph Selections of Students, By Sex, Age, and Socio-Economic Status ofCommunity 75 28. The