7603551.Pdf (4.18
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
INFORMATION TO USERS This material wat produced from a microfilmcopy of the original document. While tha moat advanced technological meant totograph pho and reproduce this document have been wed, the quality it heavily deparot upon the quality of the original submitted. The following explanation of techniquesprovided is to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear onreproduction. this I.The sign or "target" for pages perentiyapi lacking from the document photographed is "Misting Page(s)". it was possible to obtain the missing paga(s) or section, they are splicedto in the film along with adjacent pages, This may have necessitated cuttingru thi an image end duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuty. 2. Whan an image on the film is oblitsratad with a large round black mark, it is an indication that tha photographcr suspected that tho copy may have moved during exposure and cauithusise a blurred image. You will find a good image of the pega in the edjacert frame. 3. Whan a map,drawing or chart, jtc.,e was part of the matarial being photographedthe photographerfollowed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand comer of a large sheet arid to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a smat overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below pie first row and continuing on until complete. 4. The majority of users indicate that textual content is of greatest value, however, a sommvhat higher qualireproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the uirstanding of tha dissartation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be tied at additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving thecatalog number, title, euthor and specific pagas you wish reproduced. 5. PLEASE NOTE: Some may have indistinct print Filmed . received. Xerox University Microfilms 900 North Z M b Road Ann Aitor, Michigan 48106 76-3551 SHARER,, Jon Wesley, 1940» 1HB BSFBC1S' QP TNO FERCEFIUAliTUALSEI SETS_____ UPON TUB WRCBPTK3NCfc P IC T U R E S !^ > The Ohio State * University, Hi .D ..1975 JRine Alts XeroxUnfversity Mlcrofllmtf ^Art>or,Miohisin4«ic« 0 1975 JOH WESLEY SHAKER ALL RIGHTS RESERVED THE EFFECTS OF TWO PERCEPTUAL SETS UPON THE SUBSEQUENT PERCEPTION OF PICTURES: AN APPLICATION OF THE PERCEPTUAL THEORIES OF JAMES AND ELEANOR GIBSON AND JEROME BRUNER DISSERTATION Presented In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy In the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Jon W, Sharer, B.A., M.S. The Ohio State University 1975 Reading Committee Approved by Dr. Arthur Efland Dr. Ross Norris JDr, Kenneth Marantz S' Department of Art Education VITA August 14, 1940........ Born— Chicago, Illinois. 1963.................. B.A., Roosevelt University, Chicago, Illinois. 1963-1966........... ...Art Teacher, John Marshall High School, Chicago, Illinois. 1966-1971.............. Staff Assistant, Chicago Board of Education, Chicago, Illinois. 1968............... ....M.S., Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, Illinois. 1971-1975.............. Teaching Associate, Department of Art Education, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Art Education. Studies in the Psychology of Perception. Professor Jacque Kaswan and Associate Professor Dean Owen. Studies in the Philosophy of Perception. Associate Professor Ross Norris. Studies in Art Education. Professors Kenneth Marantz and Arthur Efland and Assistant Professor Gilbert Clark. 11 TABLE OP CONTENTS Page VITA................................................. U LIST OF TABLES....................................... V . LIST OF FIGURES.............. Vi J ■ Chapter I. INTRODUCTION Problem.................................. 1 II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE Stimulus Structure.................. 6 Visual and Verbal Set............... 11 Studies Comparing Linguistio and Visual Clues........................ 17 The Oibsons and Bruner......... 22 Stimulus Availability.................... 29 Hypotheses.............................. 33 III. METHODOLOGY Sample....................... 35 Selection of Test Items.................. 36 Test Format and Procedures ........ 39 Design............................ 46 Hypotheses ........ 48 Analysis of Data— As sumptions ...... 49 IV. RESULTS AND IMPLICATIONS Results........................ $4 Interpretation of Results.•••• ......... 59 ill TABLE OP CONTENTS (Continued) Page Summary of Findings and Conclusions...... 65 Implications for Additional Research 66 Implications for Instruction.......... •• 68 BIBLIOGRAPHY......................................... 75 APPENDIX A. Glossary..................................... 83 B. Raw Data..................................... 87 C. Visual and Verbal Perceptual Sets............. 92 D. Titles of Pictures in Displays................ 97 lv LIST OF TABLES Table . Page 1. Inter-Judge Reliability for Target Pictures...... 38 2. Cochran's Test Tor Homogeneity of Variance, Correct Responses......................... 52 3. Means, Standard Deviations, and Variances for Correct Responses ......... 55 Means, Standard Deviations, and Variances for Incorrect Responses.................... 56 5. Three Between One Within Partial Hierarchical Analysis of Variance Tor Correct Responses........... 57 6. Three Between One Within Partial Hierarchical Analysis of Variance for Inoorreot Responses...................... .......... 58 7. Post Hoc Comparisons for A1 and A2, Dunn's Test...................................... 6l 8. Post Hoc Comparisons for Levels of B, Dunn's Test...................................... 63 9. Post Hoc Comparisons for Cl and C2, Dunn's Test...................................... 65 10. Raw Data for the Gibson Orientation.............. 88 11. Raw Data for the Bruner Orientation.............. 89 12. Frequency of Weights for Target Groups of Pictures by Judges........ ............... 90 13* Judges' Classification of Pictorial Descriptors............. 91 v 1 LIST OF FIQURES Figure Page 1. Arrangement of Pictures in the Learning and Criterion Displays..................... 2. Preknowledge of Artist*1 Names............... 3. Three Between One Within Partial Hierarchical Design................................. 4. Analysis of Interaction for AB Across Levels of C, Correct Responses....,............ 5. Analysis of Interaction for A Across Levels of B, Correct Responses................ 6. Analysis of Interaction for BC Across Levels of A, Correct Responses.......... ..... 7. Analysis of Interaction for C Across Levels of B, Incorrect Responses.............. 8. Visual and Verbal Set for the Learning and Criterion Displays..................... 9. Visual and Verbal Set for the Learning and Criterion Displays..................... 10. Visual and Verbal Set for the Learning and Criterion Displays..................... 11. Visual and Verbal Set for the Learning and Criterion Displays..................... Vi CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Problem Art educators advocate the use of pictures In produc tive! critical and historical inquiry, but little is known about how one learns from pictures.3- Teachers organize pictures, e.g., slides, on the basis of content or subject matter decisions rather than on the basis of how the ar rangement of pictures influences learning. Vhile this is not an either-or matter, it does reflect a lack of theoret ical understanding of how one's use of pictures affects learning. There has been research in art education con cerning perceptual learning. However, as reflected in Studies In Art Education, this research has concentrated on the effect of pictorial learning upon drawing or verbal re sponses rather than the effect of pictorial learning upon one's subsequent perception of pictures (Efland, 1965; Salome, 1965; Dorothy, 1974; Kannegleter, 1971; Lovano, 1970; Porce, 1970; Wilson, 1966). In contrast, the focus of this investigation is upon perceptual learning that ^The term 'picture' is being used to refer to repro ductions or photographs. 1 2 results from the way pictures are used and the effect of this learning upon pictures subsequently peroelved. Underlying the study Is the notion that different meth ods of presenting and responding to pictures can result In different stimulus features or* different stimulus Informa tion being attended to and consequently differences In per ceptual learning.2*^ If different ends are aohleved through the detection of different Information, the differences be tween methods should be accounted for In Instruction. For example, with conservation tasks the emphasis Is upon one's conception of the stimulus and upon detecting Just enough stimulus Information which will confirm what one knows, whereas with differentiation tasks the emphasis Is upon what one sees and upon detecting stimulus Information which will enable one to distinguish variables of stimulation. If one desired students to grasp a conservation task, It would not be Instructlonally useful to use methods of presenting stim uli which focus on stimulus features. Two different methods of presenting and responding to pictures are investigated. One method emphasizes the effect upon learning of the arrangement of pictures and the ^Perceptual learning refers to the detection of new stimulus variables or Information. ^The terms 'perception' and 'stimuli' will be used to' refer to visual stimuli and perception unless otherwise stated. 3 differentiation of these pictures from pictures of different classes. This approach Is based on James and Eleanor Gib son's