Notes on:
Gallagher, M. (1978) 'Good television and
good teaching', in Educational Broadcasting
International: 203-6
Dave Harris
A body of expertise has been developed by BBC
producers who make Open University
programmes. [In those days] there was a lot
of television produced: 1300 different television
programmes amounting to 35 1/2 hours per
week. The OU had developed a 'unique style'
of teaching and distance in their [written]
course units, aiming to produce 'an interactive
learning experience' (203). However, there
was no equivalent for TV, no particularly
distinctive OU style, with the possible exception
of maths. Instead, course teams 'learnt and
adapted… the existing practices and
conventions'.
The issue is whether these make for good
educational television. The pressure to
achieve professional standards can have
educational disadvantages, emphasizing the product
rather than the process, for example. There
is no doubt that students enjoy sophisticated
documentary - style programmes, but they are
'much less likely to understand the educational
purpose' than with 'straightforward didactic'
types. Documentary is the most common genre,
however.
Thompson says that realism provides the viewer
with an experience like a hot bath: it reassures,
makes few intellectual demands. It is quite
possible therefore that researchers have been
'deceived' by student enthusiasm (204), and that
style detracts from cognitive performance.
This has been confirmed by her own research.
Open University students are already exposed to
'good TV' and these notions do impinge on their OU
viewing—for example, they tend to be very critical
of programmes which failed to use the conventions
of good TV.
OU programmes are already conceived with the wider
general audience in mind. [Note that the
current output {2010} involves programmes made
jointly between the OU and other broadcasting
companies, which are shown in general viewing
slots, sometimes with a trail at the end
suggesting that viewers make contact with the
OU. It was probable that low levels of use
and high expense ended specific production of OU
TV. The rise of new electronic technology is
another factor]. Case studies are widely liked as
a complement to the course units, and are seen as
concrete and synthetic rather than abstract and
analytic, and as capable of showing the real
complexities. They have great potential
especially in promoting the students' own
abilities to analyse. However, the teaching
functions are only very loosely described, and
there is an emphasis on content.
Examples are provided for the course Mass
Communication and Society. Three case
studies are offered in terms of conventional
politics and television coverage in Britain and
America. One aim was to make students more
aware of the technical and logistic difficulties
of producing such programmes. This worked
well, but depicting the issue of ideology as a
filter for content was much more difficult, and
the programme makers were forced to assume a prior
knowledge of the concepts, and that students were
analyzing rather than just observing.
Another program covered women's work for the
course Patterns of Inequality. The
idea was not to give information about female
working conditions, although students apparently
thought that was the aim. The course team
hoped to exemplify concepts in the course, and
this was explained in the programme notes, but
only 1 in 6 of the students questioned were able
to do this. They lacked interpretative
skills. The aims were vague, and included
the need to get students involved and
motivated. The links with the concepts were
actually established after the programme was shot,
following discussion with the educational
technologist on the course team, but this was too
late (205). The notion of involvement was
seen as incompatible with analysis, and the
emphasis on involvement raised the old worries
about student immersion in the programme, that
students would see the programme as similar to BBC
output like Horizon, or ITV output like World
in Action, rather than something to be
analyzed.
Student learning skills need more work. A
high level of intellectual skill is demanded,
including 'learning to learn' skills. There
may be special ones required for TV.
Students were largely unaware of the effects of
television conventions such as presentational
features which influence their perceptions, the
nature of the editorial process, how (a)typical
evidence might be, the role of commentary and
their relation to the visual. They were
simply prepared to accept that the BBC was
impartial. These skills can be developed,
but they may require different kinds of case
studies. Inexperienced students need more
didactic inputs, more structure, more activity,
more neutral content which can be integrated into
the programme: they need to be introduced to the
subtleties gradually. Special programmes
might be required, including actual TV programmes
which can be criticized, regardless of whether
this still constitutes 'good TV'.
Resistance might be expected 'from both producers
and academics'(206). Nevertheless, there
should be more academic 'intervention' in case
studies, perhaps in the form of commentary,
captions or voice overs. The narrative flow
should be broken. It might be possible to
follow the film with discussion and then to rerun
it [there might be an example of this in the
philosophy sections in A101, I recall]. We
need to reveal the construction of the programme
itself, to get to the issue of evidence, for
example, and to show how television programmes are
organized and put together: that they do not just
depict raw reality. Some innovations like
this are being planned.
more education
studies
|
|