Most people watch television for entertainment, but it has played a significant role in educational history. From the early days of the National Educational Television network to today’s multimillion-dollar documentaries, educational television has been broadcast to millions. Whether or not this primarily one-way dissemination of content actually results in learning is still debated, but its rich history certainly offers important lessons for implementing new technology in education. In this paper, five sources spanning six decades are synthesized in an attempt to address why television failed to match the propaganda of it being a revolutionary learning medium. The answer is understandably complex, but the perspectives presented by these authors offer valuable insight as to why all new educational technologies seemingly fail to fulfill their revolutionary promises.
As television started gaining popularity in the late 1940s and 1950s, it was lauded as a radical new learning aid, destined to surpass the achievements and overcome the problems of previous media. Radio and film had experienced some success, but radio was limited to audio and film lacked immediacy. Television expanded beyond these barriers, leading many to comment on its “immense potentialities… [and] status as a suitable educational medium” (Maclaine, 1963, p. 33). Ferretti (1972) echoes that sentiment by stating that “habitual, regular viewing can alter views, can change minds, can teach” (p. 371). Many governments, policy makers and school officials agreed and embraced television with open arms. In 1952, the Federal Communications Commission in the United States campaigned fiercely to acquire 242 television frequencies for noncommercial educational purposes. The Ford Foundation was so convinced of the medium’s potential that it invested more than $2.5 million in classroom television instruction during the 1950s and $6 million in the early 1960s (Levin & Hines, 2003, p. 269). Consequently, educational television and its viewership grew substantially. For example, by 1967, WQED in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania was offering instruction in many subjects to 800,000 students in over 23,000 classrooms (Levin & Hines, 2003, p. 269). Policy makers and reformers deemed it a success for all involved. A report from Martha Gable, an American district administrator, stated that “the rapid increase in classroom television, due largely to favorable responses from teachers, pupils, and parents, leaves no doubt as to the effectiveness of this new medium as a teaching device” (Levin & Hines, 2003, p.264). Many also believed that television’s utopian prospects stretched beyond the classroom, insisting it could provide effective in-home education (Levin & Hines, 2003, p. 265; Ferretti, 1972, p. 369). In addition, it was exalted as a panacea to the era’s severe teacher shortage resulting from the number of children of the post-World War II baby boom reaching school age (Cuban, 1986, p. 43). With abundant funding, large-scale telecourses, and widely popular programs, such as Sesame Street, educational television appeared destined for its predicted greatness. Over time, however, it became evident that it was not being watched in classrooms or homes to the degree anticipated, and support and funding began to wane.
Many authors acknowledge that educational television failed to attain its anticipated stardom, but provide differing perspectives regarding the cause. Ferretti (1972) and Levin and Hines (2003) posit that the diminished success was a result of outside sources, namely a lack of sufficient, permanent funding, decreasing government support, and pressure from commercial broadcasters to privatize their broadcast frequencies. Conversely, Cuban (1986) points to inside sources, including a failure by policy makers to consult or involve teachers in the decisions to conceive, plan and adopt the new technology (p. 55). A lack of connection with theories and pedagogies may also be a factor, however, both appear notably absent from all five sources. Offering an alternative perspective, some authors point to the failure of the technology itself. Maclaine (1963) provides data from multiple research studies suggesting that television may provide “no significant differences in the achievement of … [television] viewers and non-viewers” (p. 36) and suggests that television actually “distracts from more rewarding general educational activities [such as books]” (Maclaine, 1963, p. 36). In agreement with Maclaine, Cuban postulates that there is no “clear demonstration that instruction is any more effective or productive after the introduction of … instructional television” (Cuban, 1986, p.147). As the novelty of educational television dimmed, even teachers were expressing their discontent. In fact, the American Federation of Teachers “unanimously resolved that television not become the core of the curriculum” (Levin & Hines, 2003, p. 265). Whether the cause of educational television’s fall from glory was outside sources, inside sources, the technology itself, or a combination thereof, each of these perspectives shows merit and should be carefully considered by policy makers when considering new technologies and their potential role in education.
The causes and consequences of educational television being “oversold and underused” (Cuban, 2003, as citied in Keeler, 2011, p. 284) are historically significant. As scholars look back on educational television, they provide unique perspectives on lessons learned and future considerations. Keeler (2011) identifies a distinct pattern which radio, film, television, and likely other educational technologies, have followed, starting with a “bright-promise stage” (John Tebbel, 1951, as cited in Keeler, 2011, p. 283) with idealistic affirmations, invariably followed by “an anemic version of the original dream” (Cuban, 1986, p. 74). Efforts to implement modern technologies such as iPads and mobile phones into education appear positioned to suffer a similar fate as we continue to place excessive faith on new technology. Maclaine’s (1963) argument of the necessity of sufficient research before proceeding with new developments appears to have been largely ignored for nearly sixty years. Levin and Hines (2003) state that past lessons from educational television appear “reported, if not learned” (p. 274), adding that computers are being put in schools, costing hundreds of millions of dollars, without evidence of any learning potential (Levin & Hines, 2003, p. 274). These perspectives should help decision makers understand “the dimensions of complexity of introducing new technologies into classrooms” (Cuban, 1986, p.74). Implementing any new technology requires considerable funds and time, thus, sufficient research, teacher input, and concern for current theories and pedagogies are critical to sound decisions. The ascertainment of a new technology’s effectiveness as a learning tool should be paramount, as well as the recognition that, regardless of the technology, “much of the perceived ‘success’ or ‘failure’ of students … depends on the skills and presence of the teacher, and his or her connection with the students” (Keeler, 2011, p. 284). Advice from the last six decades appears sound; hopefully new decision makers will listen.
When television came onto the scene, it seemed destined for educational greatness. Though it may be “an example of one of the more successful campaigns that built upon the successes of previous media while also learning from their mistakes” (Keeler, 2011, p. 260), it failed to achieve its lofty aspirations. Some accuse outside sources such as government and commercial broadcasters (Ferretti, 1972, p. 377; Levin & Hines, 2003, p. 273). Others point to a lack of communication among policy makers and teachers (Cuban, 1986, p. 54). Still others suggest an inability of the technology itself to influence learning (Maclaine, 1963). A disconnect with theories and pedagogies may also be a factor. Whatever the cause, it is important to understand the various perspectives in an attempt to recognize the complexities of educational technology and extract the lessons from its many decades of existence. One of the most important lessons, however, appears to be unlearned as we continue to battle the “new is better mantra” (Keeler, 2011, p. 285) against the rationale that “every technological advance does not necessarily spell progress” (Maclaine, 1963, p.33).
References
Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920. Teachers College Press: New York, NY.
Ferretti, F. (1972). Educational television. American Libraries, 3(4), 366-384.
Keeler, A. R. (2011). ’Sugar coat the educational pill’: The educational aspirations of emergent film, radio, and television (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. (3491484)
Levin, R. A., & Hines, L. M. (2003). Educational television, Fred Rogers, and the history of education. History of Education Quarterly, 43(2), 262-275.
Maclaine, A. G. (1963). The educational significance of television. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 1(3), 33-40.