Microfilmed - 1064 Information to Users
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
MICROFILMED - 1064 INFORMATION TO USERS This reproduction was made from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technology has been used to photograph and reproduce this document, the quality of the reproduction is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help clarify markings or notations 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 ari spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark, it is an indication of either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, duplicate copy, or copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed. For blurred pages, a good image of the page can be found in the adjacent frame. If copyrighted materials were deleted, a target note wfll appear listing the pages in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photographed, a definite method of “sectioning” the material has been followed. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand comer o f a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again—bepnning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. For illustrations that cannot be satisfactorily reproduced by xerographic means, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and inserted into your xerographic copy. These prints are available upon request from the Dissertations Customer Services Department. 5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases the best available copy has been filmed. U niversi^ Micrdtilms International 300 N.Zaeb Road Ann Artsor. Ml 48106 8413976 Huff, John Larry A COMPARISON OF THE TELEVISION VIEWING HABITS AND CLASSROOM BEHAVIOR OF DISRUPTIVE AND NON-DISRUPTIVE STUDENTS The University of Oklahoma Eo.D. 1984 University Microfilms I nternetione!3 0 0 N. Zeeb Road. Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 PLEASE NOTE: In all cases this material has tieen filmed in the best possible way from the available copy. Problems encountered with this document have t)een identified here with a check mark ■£_ 1. Glossy photographs or pages. 2. Colored illustrations, paper or print _____ 3. Photographs with dark background ______ 4. Illustrations are poor copy ______ 5. Pages with black marks, not original copy. 6. Print shows through as there is text on both sides of page. 7. Indistinct, broken or small print on several pages < / 8. Print exceeds margin requirements_____ 9. Tightly bound copy with print lost in spine ______ 10. Computer printout pages with indistinct print. 11. Page(s)___________ lacking when material received, and not available from school or author. 12. Page(s)___________ seem to tie missing in numtiering only as text follows. 13. Two pages numbered ___________ . Text follows. 14. Curling and wrinkled pages ______ 15. Other _____________________________________________________________________ University Microfilms International THE UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA GRADUATE COLLEGE A COMPARISON OF THE TELEVISION VIEWING HABITS AND CLASSROOM BEHAVIOR OF DISRUPTIVE AND NON-DISRUPTIVE STUDENTS A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE FACULTY in partial fulfillment of the requirements for degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION By JOHN LARRY HUFF Norman, Oklahoma 1984 A COMPARISON OF THE TELEVISION VIEWING HABITS AND CLASSROOM BEHAVIOR OF DISRUPTIVE AND NON-DISRUPTIVE STUDENTS APPROVED BY DISSERTATION COMMITTEE A COMPARISON OF THE TELEVISION VIEWING HABITS AND CLASSROOM BEHAVIOR OF DISRUPTIVE AND NON-DISRUPTIVE STUDENTS By JOHN LARRY HUFF Major Professor: Dr. Charlyce King The purpose of this study was to determine the differences between the television viewing habits of disruptive and non-disruptive students. Two groups of students, disruptive students (N=32) and non-disruptive students (N=50), reported the number of hours they viewed particular television programs aired during a particular one-week period. The number of hours spent viewing television and the number of violent acts viewed were compared for the disruptive students and the non-disruptive students to te st two major hypotheses. Three other hypotheses were tested concerning the inter-relationships among the variables measured on the disruptive students. The results of testing the first null hypothesis led to the general conclusion that there was no real difference between the amount of time the disruptive and non-disruptive students spend watching television. A common belief is that disruptive students watch considerably more tele vision than non-disruptive students but the results of this study would not support this idea. The results of testing the second null hypothesis led to the general conclusion that the disruptive students watched television that was much more violence oriented than the television viewed by the non- disruptive students. The results of testing the third null hypothesis led to the con clusion that those disruptive students who watched the most television saw the most violent acts. Results of testing the fourth null hypothesis led to the general conclusion that those disruptive students who viewed the most violent acts on television tended to cause the most classroom disruptions. Results of testing the fifth null hypothesis led to the general conclusion that those disruptive students who viewed the most violent acts tended to commit the most serious classroom disruptions. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The author wishes to express sincere appreciation to Dr. Charlyce King for her continual guidance, assistance, and encouragement in the development of this study. Also, appreciation is expressed to Dr. Robert Bibens, Dr. Charles Butler, Dr. William Eick, and Dr. Gerald Kidd for their assistance and counsel as members of the committee. Appreciation is extended to Dr. Lewis Eubanks, Superintendent of Midwest City Public Schools, and Mr. Guy Burkhart, Principal of Kerr Junior High School, for their cooperation in making this study possible. A special thanks to Dr. Ed Porter who advised me with the statis tical analysis of the data. To my wife, Betty Kay, my daughters, Amanda and Cindy, and my son, John, I am indebted for their patience and understanding throughout the years of graduate study and the completion of this study. m TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................... iii LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................... vi Chapter I. INTRODUCTION AND PROBLEM .......................................................... 1 Need for the Study .................................................................. 3 Statement of the Problem ..................................................... 11 Hypotheses to be Tested .......................................................... 11 Population Defined .................................................................. 12 Limitations of the Study . ................................................. 12 Definition of Terms .................................................................. 13 Statement of the Purpose ..................................................... 14 II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE .................................................................. 16 Psychological Effects .............................................................. 20 Television Affects Learning .................................................. 26 Violence and Television .......................................................... 29 III. METHODOLOGY....................................................................................... 33 Design of the Study .................................................................. 33 Description of the Subjects .................................................. 33 Instrumentation .......................................................................... 34 Procedure for Collecting Data ................................................ 35 Treatment of the D ata .............................................................. 37 IV. FINDINGS........................................................................................... 38 Results of Testing Null Hypothesis Number O n e .............................................................................. 39 Results of Testing Null Hypothesis Number T w o .............................................................................. 42 Results of Testing Hypotheses Concerning Disruptive Students (Only) ......................... 44 Summary of Results .................................................................. 46 IV TABLE OF CONTENTS (C o nt'd) Page V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS ................................. 48 Results of the Experiment ...................................................... 48 Conclusions Drawn from the Results of the Experiment...................................................... 49 Implications for Further Research ..................................... 51 REFERENCES............................................................................................................... 52 APPENDICES Appendix