ED 114 431 :

AUTHORTITLEPUB' EiATE

KoTE

DOCUMENT RESUME

TM 004 997

Olien, C. N.; And OthersA Social'Sxstems-Approach to EvaluatiOn Research.[Apr 75114p.r Ncit ayillable in hard copy due to marginallegibility of originaldocument

EPRS PRICE M17-$0.76-Plus'PoStage. HC Not Available from ERRS,,,DrscpipTott . ,Oult Education Pro134lait'il Audiences; Delivery

Systhis; *EduCationalprelevision; ElementaryEdUcationEvaluation; *information DiSsemination;

nKass Media; odels;, Nutrition Instiction;Orgemizati n;t Prediction *Program Evaluation;Research; oc'al Action; :social Systems';. StudentPeaction; *Sy terns Analysis

IDEN1TIPIERS Mull'ilan "Stew0 t

KB Sti ACT: "."*.i'

or; An jA3drmat7"..onof adult eduemition.programs is

, 1 'beesed upon identifying prihcipand audience, which are involve

ti-and-receptipp:oVeducational-meseparate but ifiierdependents, hamake crucial deci'sions abouk ge

10control.systems model for evaluation'offered and' illustrO&ed. The model is1 subsystemSt,quch 'as, source, channel

in initiation, production, deliverysages. These subpystems are seen asing the pOwer sino] y or jointly to'eration, dissemination ot.withholding

of information. the extent do ,which these 'subsystems may in fact

r,

5

exert such controls has beenstudies, many in the mass commthe model is illustrated in the etetevisiop seri-es. which,-althotighimplications for evaluation of,aninvolves extensive use of the 'massincluded before-after student respestimates of such response frospecialists, televition statiofinal'oretcom4ithe-Mulligan Stew re ults generally

systms'model, andi(K)

eje

support the information contrdlutility in evaluational researc

nstrate4 in a variety of researchcation area. Specific (application ofvaluiltion of the "Mulligan Stew"directed*at'a foung audience, hasAdult education prograr whichpommunicatiOn media. The studynses in eight chooli 4nd

mOtrition-special sts, informdtion ,

perSonnel, and tea hers. In termslofand strongly, i

testify to its

N.

lc..0 c

****************************************************** ************ **** :'

* Documents acquired by ERIC include many informal npublished Al.* ''

* materials not available from other\sources, ERICA make.,,every

effort * '

* to obtain the .best copy available. \Nevertheless,. items\of marginal *

* reproducibility are often encountered and this affects the quality *.o.* of the microfiche and hardcopy reproductions ERIC makes available' ** via the EPIC Document Rekroduction Service (EDRS) . EDRS is 'not ** responsible for the quality of the origihal document. Pe roductions ** supplied' by EPPS are the best that can be made from the iginl. ******************************************************** ******** **

.t_

aK ;

'ilk-eaRTMENTOF HEALTHA 04.1CAT/ONIVNELEA.RE- letIONAL INSTITUTE OF

1.1.

EDUCATION . . .TNIS 3,1ENT HAS BEEN REPRO

. PL,C ,,,ti.-X trTLY AS RECEIVED PROM ,,, A SOCIAL SA-T,EltS APPROACH TO EVALUATION RESEARCH71,4E 7ERSD, Ok ORGaNiZ47kONOR4.:0P1 ..:IsATING IT 'PO711401 VIE,O. OR OPinvoyS :

._ lPA TED DI NO,LOYCCE SARACY REPRE ..- 4, ,

li'L NT OPrICIAt. 1.1M /,ova, inr.TfirkiTi of C.N. Olien, P.J. Tichenor, G.A. Donohuet Di, (ATION PT'S, tO:ii OR PO, ,t r

'Fiterig and pr ocedu=as for evaluation research have been najot contents, as

rc\-1s44eScale and costly social action programs, have multiplied on t:he state and

netionaVlevels. Innavative approaches to social problemi that involve complix

or3aniza4ons and processes raise an array of questions about the eviluational:

pLcess. 4, 2/ Tests of individual behavior modification are typical criteria for.

r-i evaluation. 'Evaluation might provide more extensive structural infOrmatIon about

7-4- how specific goils ma,: or m:y not have been achieVed which might nrovidua broader

C.73 base for imareNemg flit:11re p. )grata 3/

F social systgw 'appro'ach evalu.tion .1ppears 'fruitful in view of the tect

that social act-.on programs recur in the col.text of a particular social system aid

often in an atmosphere of soCill conflict and tension. 4/ Such an'appioachivi s

educational programs as outcomes of interaction among separate, but interdepensoeal subsysteasi such as sov.ce, channel and'audienca 5/ and may be Contras

$ ,iith a more.:freqvent tendency to concentrate on the final outcome of me sage

delivery based on whether even behavioral objectives. ere achieved. '6/ or exam le,

illmevaluailons are (;enerally basek.gn measured responses of the cliente gro

viewing it' and concentrates primarily on the'point of contact and on clienteresponse alone. 7, 8, 9/

A social system as used here refers to a pattern of interactingand inter--..dependent roles, and may be viewed as containing a variety of distinct but function-

, ally interdependent subsystems. 10/, Relevant subsystems for edUcatiobal communica-.'tion would include'a source subsystem of disciplinary specialists,,a program

.

production and delivery subsystem, and an audience subsystem. 11/ Specification of .

1 subsystems depends upon the particular program under evaluation. ir-4.

.-"4.

' Identification of interdependent segments, or Subsystems, is central to ananalysis of information. control processes which in turn may determine the- putcome

,%of an educational.nrogram. 12/,03

*I _Such information 'control s are exerted at different organizational levels.In a study of schools in Hagerstown school'administrators seemed generally more,favorable toward instructional television than,teachers did,'and teachers in lowergrades were more feorable than those in higher grades. Ot Greater administratorteacher similarity at lower grades gay result from the greater direct control byadministrators -at the eleMentary level. .

t'sin a /linnesota study concerning science communication through printed media,

/krepoiters tended to produce more understandable and accurate ,messages when' they0.

-(7? operated in an environment of rather rigid controls. 14/. These control factorsincluded specific editor assignment, dependence upon prior printed materials suchas. presa,releascs Or jburnal articles, and ,contact with sources having administrative

responsibilities and experience. ' ,.04

4 A

Importance of, the organizational structure in determining content oemessegesis further illuminated in Cantor's study of-24 roducers AO script writers who

(:: specialize an childrentelevision prograiis.167 While all parts of the syitem S.

Cilt

. * 0

s.'', .

2

4: ,,,," )1/4

. 'I*,

..- ,

"",s-

' 2 -

. .

, f-

may-afiect-content, she poihts out, 'the most important influence is from those

segments in. direct interaction with the wrifier., Sh'e frequently found script ..

writeratreating violhnce not in terms of theirtown feelings about it, burratherin rine with station dr. etWork policy.

ta,.

Her finding is similar to-that of Donohew;-'

-'to reported a-close corr pondence between attitudes of Kentticky newspaper publishers

. :.1-1 the way in uhidh theii-newepapers covered theof

issue. 16, 17/ In the,....,1ohew study, pn!AIshers' attitude? and content Of theip papers were most anti-7;'aiicare in small rural tdwris where one might have (in the early 196flts when the

i.:, stady'lIas done) expected sttong opposition from the local medical profession.

...,, .

Evaluation and Sodial,conflict'/

Tension, arising from'competition, deviance or other,forms of'social conflict.

1is a characteristic condition of social systema; 18 ,19 / Amount and type of tension

is related to the nature of the social structure. For..ezamplie,,the more the

horizOtal segmentation among source specialists prciduding a program, the gteaterthe likelihood of differences among specialists about fotm and content of messages.Similarly; conflict rit4 bh related to vertical pluralism. T1 .greatek the number,

of administrative leyels.in program development, the gteater the opportunitigs for

differences to occur.

, Aitttg iiti identification of subsyste0s, systems analysis involves',.

identificatron of .conflicts and_tensionand7possible.consequences$for programoutcon" Terition by itself is not necessarily, either negative or positive in its

consequepies.. 2n/ Conflict and tension maybe functionaf for system maintenance,for.goal Attainment, or for adaptive adjustMent. In a community,'the conflictatmosphere surrounding an issue may lead tO' shlirply focused media attention on a

topic and an attraction of attention among,audience segments who might otherwiseignore s:udit) a topic. The outcome may be -widread familiarity and a more equaldistribulipn of understanding across educational levels than would'othgkwise occur.Several analyses of data have demonstrated thatcoeflici can serve to reduceknowledge gaps within a community. 21/ : : *:

. 4._ , .,

.

Conflicts mart ve a variety of consequences.for progial outcomes: FilM

producers" may defer to sources on what said about a topic, but argue vehemently

over what topics to cover. Also, film=makers may have quite different views than,sources have about what cultural symbolato use and what social values to highlightAnd reinforce., Chemists and cinematoAaphers may in ptinciple defer to each other's"'

professional expertise,- but there may be a large gray are in message production

that - doesn't fall neatly within one discipline or the p er. Chemists are concernedP1(about how their profession is portrayed and cinematographers have,otandards fordramatic and visual quality. The two concerns miiht*Odmelln conflict, as when the

cinematrographer wishes to dramatize a scene involving addict and,

medical expert in a way that the chemist finds offensive` to the research profesSions.While such conflicts in television .production may tend.lithe resolved ,in favor oforganizatioriai policy, 4iiks Cantor found, their existence may also be ftinctional for

creative production. 22. 23/v.

Whether a conflict is or is not functionalis itself an important aspect ofsystems analysis in program' evaluation. For examplg, extension agents and a sample

of community editors were,asked identical questions about adult edudation programs

in community development. Both groups agreed that some sort of community,planning

1

3

1

- 3

was needed. dn specifics, however,.there were sharp differences. 9hile.agents

were oriented toward the University educational mission, editors viewed Rural Areas

,,Development and Poverty Programs as largely federal efforts for pouring:funds into

financially-depressed towns and regions. Editors and agents had themostdiscrepant views on topics that were most relevant fo their relationship., 24/ In

thi's case, fundamental communication blockage.existed between two key communication

roles in the system. 25/

t

Audience assessment .41t4

Ability t) asseis aadience response by a given subsystem - -such as a source or

channel group--:is another aspect of system analysis. Research evidence to.date

suggests thAt profesSional communicators are 'pot necessarily more effective than

subject matter source specialists inestimating audience:response to messages.

Several.studies have,pointed to -the marked ability of source roles to

estimate audience response with relatively high degrees of accuracy. In Tannenbaum's

studies with small purposiVe samples, scientists (as well as science writers) were

more accurate in estimating science reader interest in news stories than were

editors. 2/ Also, in'a Ilinnesota study of adolescent. reaction to two ETV films,meteorologists were more accurate in predicting audience, reaction to a. film onweather and. meteorology than were professional photography experts. 27/ (TABLE 1)

Identification of audience assessment errors through/systems evaluationmight well lead to adjustments that improve ability:Of sub#ystems to predict audienceresponse. Given an opportunitt iy'tostudyand know a part6ular community, channelcommunicators may be quite accurate ,in estimating certain aspects of popular reactionto a mass media message. ,Cleary and Beal gave extensive information about. a,villageand a Meal water controversy t6 21 television producers. Reactions of 1001 TV

vietiers were then compared with producer estimates, which were highly accurate inpredictions of audience size, audience evaluation, and amount of audience talkingabout the show. 28, 29, 30, 31/ 4 /

System Legitithation, ,

One stage, or key event in systems analysit'is legitimation. 32/ Sesame ''411.,

J_Street, for example, was socially legitimized by'a, broad spectrum of educational

-Thstitutions when it was first introduced.a3/ A six-part series on.notrition developedthrough the Cooperative Extension Service/network for 9 to 12-year-olds was widelypraised, and thereby legitimized, by groups of extension educators and nutritionistsaround the nation before it was sent out/to TV stations and schools for showing, toyouth groups. 34/ This legitimation appears to have been instrumental in gaining

'Widespread use of the series by both stations and classroom teachers.

A phase which will ordinarily follow legitimatiOnis commitment and allocationof organizational and media resources to production and delivery of the program.'Purposive messages do not move by themselves, but are exchanged in a System ih,pro-portionfto the'sociaa energy.ggnerated by the various groups. The series on nutrition

cited above required the mobilization of a wide netWork of agencies, including theU.S.'Department of Agriculture, state universities, state education departments,television stations, county extension stafts,...ana elementary school districts. Proino-tion was both horizontal and vertical, and eachform of diffusion depended upon aprior commitment at some agency level to devote a certain amount of energy to thenroject. 35/

t

. .

,ApPlicationa.of a systems evaluation model

A recent-application of the systems evanation model is concerned with azi

educational television series on nutrition 'for 9 to,12-earolas, terbed 'Mulligan

Stew," In this case the designdealt 41411 (a) the institutional context in whichthe programs were pregented, (b).etnectations of clientele performance amspg groups

d agencies developihg and_deliVering the series, and (c) the extent to which theenteleAgroup.atteined the formally' tated objectives.

This series of six half -hour color TV films,represents a major broadcastmedia educational-effort, tied in with the Expanded Food and Nutrition Program of

the U.S. Department of Agricultural Federal Extension Service, in .cooperation with

the various State Extension Services. The 'IMlligan Stew series was prodpced by a ,1)

group of film and nutrition'specialists in he USDA, in 'cooperation With program

and nutrition experts at several state universities.

Formal objectives of the Milligan Stew series included, princiva%ly, assistance

to young people in acquiring and' applying nutritional principles for Aealkhful,

productive individual development. While the stfif was developed so that it couldconceivably "stand..alone' on prime time television,the stress was oh integration ,

either with classroom nutrition instruction or with food and health projects in

such organizations as 4 -! clubs. Supporting educational materials included' a comic

book versionof the 'films, a guidebook of group exercises for teachers or leaders,

and even song books and records for original tunes and jingles produced in the films.

Casting and scripting of the .4:Ufligap Stew' series was based to a consider-

able extent on use of then-mirrent dramatic and cinematic techniqiles for attracting

young people. A number of Sesame Streetcharacters and 'techniques were employed...

Briefly, the series was based,on a neighborhood group of six youngsters, between9 and1.2 themselves, cast as the "ifulligatt Stew Gang" in a modified adventurA-comedy

-( format. In each film, the 'gang" solvedia "nutritional problem" of certain .

individuals or groups by applying their knowledge of nutritional principles. One

case was an' overweight race car driver wilo.lbsthistdrivIng job until the Mulligan

Stew gang figured' out his diet problem. They resha d his wife's cooking and his

exercise routine so that he slimmed down, we 'to driving the race car, and

took first place nest the checkered flag,'40'

Symbolic representations and,character roles.in the series are clearly

, calculated to appeal to dominant values_ofAmericau society.. The films emphasize,.repeatedly, such virtues oas good health, physical fitness, clean living, school

' achievement, athletic participation, respect for institutions and support of others

in time of,need. Various episodes make liberalmse of both positiie and negative

social models. Through rapid-fire sequencing of scenes, the films repeat, atnumerous intervals, certain slogans intended 'to. instill the idea of a,balanced diet,

the importance and function,of different food nutrients, and related nutritionalv-principles..

.., .

- . .

While a great deal professional expertise wila mobilized for production of

the series, the planning and production was not an totirely harmonious process.

There were, for sample, some sharp divisions of opinions'between some groups-of

nutritionists, extension program administrators, and production nersannel over both

. content andmode of present'tion. Analytically, however, these diVisions seemed- to

attract praessional attention to the project and stimulate interest in :its

coMpletion.

.- 5 -

'The Mangan-Stew series was released for national use in an, at*i10 ere of

,optimism and high promise. The series was. med6 available in each seate-throughstate university extension 'services who in turn contacted county elension officesand school distritts, with promotional thaterial:aescribing the series and the

supporting project material.

In MinneaUtaa total of"2,546schools requested supporting materials for

more than 100,000elementary sChOdrattiddfita,-15Ostiy-Sn-grades-4-i-5-and--16-. The--

series wasscheduled on 6 commercial teievision channels and 4 educational channels

for aj4x-week period .in October and November of 1973. Supporting materials were

4 closely tiedto the series, so.thatafter eachfiim, the teachers could select froma variety of specific exercises linked to the themes of that film.

-

4Evaluation of this series, in the Minnesota study, was based upon measures

among, -..

1. A total of 17'nutritional research specialists in 3 midwesternUniversities, all of whom were familiar with the series and many ofwhom. had taken part in planning of educational programs in theirstates Which would utilize the films.

4

.03

2. Eight 4-H infoimation specialists, in the same 8 states, who

were responsible for coordinating and distributing educational

broadcast materials-relevant to 4-H programs.

3. Eleven teldvision.station representativesMinnesota and adjoining states that broadcastMinnesota. These station representatives had

Cooperated with one of the 4-Hactivity.in schedulinethe series as a publiraervice

in the 10 stations inthe series intooriginally received theinformation specialists

4., A total of 17 classroom teachers ii schools in Which studentreaction to the series was studied in detail..

5. Hore than 1,000 4th, 5th, adds6th grade children in eightdifferent schools in which the series was supported in:varying,. .

degrees. These schools included a tefore-afier control school inan area of Wiacqnsin where the series was not available, a before-after control where the series was on..TV but no supporting materialswere used, and.three schools,where the series was on TV andlgither

_ moderate or 'heaVY use of Supportingmategials were.usedalont with- .

in-class videOtares of the aerie's. One.schobl served as an after-only control.

A few general, hypotheses guided this evaluation. One vas that among thevarious non-audiezice subsyttemei those Most closely associated with the originalsponsoring agency t'ould tend` .to have the 'highest expeCtitiahs-of audience response,compared with subsystemamore closel.y associated with the client audience. This

-meant that nutrition specialists and 4-H information specialists would be expected

to have higher.levels of. expectations than would,the TV or teacher groups.

A second gUiding%hypothesis was that the more closely,associated a.,prforsubsystem is with the audience subsystem, the more accurate the perceptions ofaudience reaction and behavior'will be. According to this reasoning, the teachers

would tend to Ilayele most accurate perceptions'areaction to the films.

N

'4

,Finally, audience reaction was expected to relate cfirectly to control factors

. in the final delivery situation. Specifically, the mare extensive the control Over

the message environment in which the purposive message is presented, the higher the

level of achievement of behavioral objectives within that audience. Operationally,

this meant that student learning and behaviOral change (more-"regular eating, of

balanced diets) would be highest in.schools which used the most supporting materials

and re-rap the. films on videotape .in the school. '

. 0

Findings from the qulligan Stew evaluation.

The findings were'partially consistent with the first hypothesis, in the

- .sense that 4-H information Specialists made the most optimistic estimates of audience

reaction. Thii,finding is-entirely-in line with the fact that the-inforAtionspecialists were more closely identified with the USDA film prograwunit thatproduced the series than was any, other subsystem in the study. Contrary to'

expectations, however, the nutritionists tended to give far more conservativeestimates of student reaction than 4-H information specialists did,'perhapsreflecting the fact that there-were differing professional viqws on what nutritional

content should be contained in such a series. AmOng the 37' nutritionists,-six,

identified content which, in their judgment, was either partially or entirelyinaccurate, and three took strong exception to what the considered to be improper

portrayal of the teacher role'in thefilms.

The second hypothesis was supported, in the sense that teachers and television

station personnel tended to make more accurate estimates thani44U information

specialists did. On the other hand, the nutritionists, presumably farther removed'from the young population in this communication,(chain, are nevertheless close tostudent estimates..

By averaging the absolute discrepancies between ratings across the 7 Items,

it is possible to make an overall comparison of accutaciyin estimating studentreactions, as in the bottom line of table 2. Overall, the television station

'personnel made the most accurate estimates, followed by the nutritionists, teachers,and information specialists, in that order. These findings may be viewed in light

of previous findings, suctfas those of Tannenbaum, who found that scientists insome cases may predict readervalues abou.science news more accurately than editors

do. 36/ Similarly, in an earlier ilinnesota study, a gioup of photographyprofessionals were-less accurate than source specialists in estimating audience-evaldtidhs of interest. 37/ In the Mulligan Stew study, a sharp line may bedrawn-between media personnel andthe information Specialists who, in this case,.make quite different'estimates, which may well reflect their differing location inthe entire system.

The third hypothesis, that learning and behavioral change would be related toinformation controls at the point of delivery, received strong support.' In both'before-after control schools: fhe one where he films. were not on TV and the one

where the films were availala but not supported in theclassrodm--there was noobserved change in either measured nutritional knowledge (based on a 17 itemnutritional knowledge scale) or in reported eating of balanced diets. Sharp changes

occurred in the three schools where there was moderate or hew?), in-school supportof the films. _Two-way analysis of variance showed a highly significant differenceamong schools (p < .001) but no difference by grade. There was, however, a sharp

Z

I

7 _

1

difference across classrooms; according to teacher input: The number Of nutrition-

al exercisesysed in the film IA a rather powerful predictor of knowledge change

.across the 14 classrooms in the three schools with moderate to heavy use of .

supporting materials. The ran'_: correlation for these 14 rooms is '.82 ,(p,:< .01)4

., .

.. Importance of such diredt control may be highlighted by.the further findingmaybethat student expression of interest in the series was lift 'highest in the 'schools that.

.had the highest viewing or the highest gain scores* Furthermore, within schools,

gain scores. were generally unrelated to ekrauations of the films or the Mulligan. /

Stew actors.._

-

In general, then, the Mulligan Stew evalUaLonalatpdy provides strong support

for an eValuationalapproach based on a model of information and knowledge. control.',To the.extent that knowledge is produced, rackaged,-and delivered in the institution-al educational setting with full deployment oinstitutional resources, there is a

greater likelihood of learning and retention of contentand of change ir'related

behavior. On the other hand, extensive av4ilabillty-lf sUchvcontent'on the mass.'media channels alone does'not app4ar to meet the Conditions necessary for the

intended result., .

... . ...

Responses of the non - audience, groups may be seen inla.systems.perspective in

terms of,their predictive value, as contrasted with their controlling influenCe on

final outcomes. Gives the key location of information specialists in the organizat-ional network,distributingthe series, 'their estimates most likely indicate an early,

and deep pyofessional.commitment to the.entire project. From an.analytical

- perspective, these responses may predict more about the use of the program in the,

total system than about ultimaEe:audience'respOnse.

Most accurate from a predictive point of view are the television stationrepresentatives' es4mates, at least for Young'people who, in fact.see the series.But actual level of viewing of an avowedly purpdsive broadcabi message'of this typerequires organizational control at the audience subsystem level as a necessary,

condition. This is noeto say that school control is the only means of meeting

this conditi 4-E club organizations'or other parent-youth groups might well be

able to provide functionally equivalent organized attention.

Summary,

.

An, isformation-cOntrol systems model for evaluation of adult education

progtams is offered and illustrated. The' model,is based upon identifying principal-subsystems, such es source,.chansel and audience, which are involved in initiation,production, delivery and-reception of educational messages. These subsystems areseen as separate but interdependent, having the power singly or jointly to make

crucial decisions about generation, di'ssemination or withholding of information..1

.

The extent to which these subsystems may in fact ,exert such controls bas'been demonstrated in a variety of research studies, many in the mass communicationarea. Control over'contenttor example, may relate to media leadership ties withthe community leadership, and to links between media personnel and source systems.Similarly,.pource and channel subsystems have diffeiing abilities to predict levelsandtype of potential audience response to messages; in several studies, scientist

sa

4

dig

or other specialist sources could make such predictions with 16els of accuracy

'either similar to or greater than predictions by some mass media -groups.Ca

. JP

Specific application of the model is illustrated in evaluation of the

"?!ulligan Stew" television series which, although directed at a young' audience,

has implications for evaluation of any program of adult eduiation which iovolires:(

extensive use of the-mass communication media. The study, included,

student responses in eight schools and estimates of such response from nutrition

specialists, information specialipts, television station personnel, and teacher's.

Among estimates of audience evaluation, the most optimistic were made by .

information specialists who were closely tied to the sponsoring agency. The most

accurate estimates of audiAce reaction were, made by television station personnel.'Close in accuracy to the station personnel were nutrition specialists, providingfurther support for the generalization that professional reseaidh.groups may be

highly accurate in predicting. audience response to popularized versions of content

in their specialized fields.

"reA . . . ,4

. -

.-..7. J. %Ic ,

. ..

Rog

p" 8

In terms of final outcome, thelfultigan,Stew results generally and strongly

support the inform'ati'on control systems model, and testify to 'its utility in

evaluational research. The factor most closely and immediately related to knowledge,

gain is organized input at the,school and claSsroom level; broadcasting the series

onjprime time television (Saturday morning) hours for the target audience without

i schbol support produced no measurable change in knowledge change or relited

b havior.

0 --

REFERENCES

'

Edward J. T4ullen, James21. Dumpson and, Associates,. Evaluation of Social

Intervention, Jossey-Bas, Ind.,'San Francisco1972..

.0

,

2. Peter:H.. Rossi and Walter Williams, Evaluating.Sociar,Programs:- Theory,

Practice,' ind:Politics."NeW York: Seminat'Press,'1972. .

,3., _.,,ElizabethiElliott, A model for.eiraluating educational programs aimed at'

didadvactagedfamilies.. Paper presented at Adult Education Re'search

donference, ChidagO, Illinois, Apr* 1972. . -,. i

, .

f

' 4. - C.N. dlien, (LA. Donohue. and P.J. Tichenor, Research on purposive

communications: An evaluational model. Pa resented to Association

'for Education in Journalism, 'Fort. Collins, do, August, 1973.. . ...... ___

* ' . ,

- .5:* , F. Jane Marceau,'"Communication and development:, A reconsideration",

Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 36, pp. 235245, Summer, 1972.

Glen G. Cain and Robinson G. Hollister, "The methodology of evaluatingsocial action programsChapter 7.in Rossi and Williams, pp. cit.

i

§.

, 7: Nielke, "Nnewing the:link between comMunicationsand educationaltechnology,' Audio-= Visual, dommunicition Review, Vol. 20, Winter, 1962,

pp. 357-399y.-*, ...

3. W.C. Lindgren, Educ ,tonal Psychology' in the Classroom. New York:

John Wiley and Sons, I c:, ,962.. ..-

'0. 9. Edward A. Siuchman, evaluative ResearCh: Principles and practice. in public

- service .acid social action programs. 'New York: Russell Sage Foundation',1r

1967..

,

.

/- 0

10.

.

Ta1cptt Parsons,' The, Social System: Menthe: i13 Free Press, 1951.. r

Bruce H. Westley and Malcolm S. lacLean Jr., "A conceptual model for

Communication research,",JoulnalismOuarterly, Vol. 34, pp. 31-38, Winter

1957;

.2. . . I .

12. G,A.' Donohue,. P.J. Tichenor and C.N, Olien, ""ass media functions, knowledge,andsociaControi," Vol. 60, pp. 652-659', Winter, 1973.

^ , .

13.,' Godwin C. Chu and WilburSchramm, Learning from Television: What the

Research Says, Washington, D.0 ..: National AssociatioR of Educational

Broiddasters, 1967.- a

/ *

14. P.J. Tichenor, C.q.Olien,,A. Harriaon and ,G.A. Donohue, "Mass cemmunicatiOn

sy6tems and.communicaion accuracy irr science news reporting," Journalise'Quarterly, Vol: 47,-pp; 673-633, Winter,) 1970.

*.

zr-h

4

. .

15.- Muriel'G. Cantor, The role og.the p oducerin choosing children!s 4eIevid

content,- in TeleviSiob and ocial B.havior: A Teabtical Report to'the.

Surgeoh*General,yol. 1, pp. 2:59-i289 Wastlingtor., CA. Government

Printing Office, 1972., -.

4

16.', 'Lewis Donohew, "Newspaper gatekeeperPublic Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 31, p

.

1 . . Phillip J. Tic)ienor, aeorge..A. Dowcommunication research:. Evolutioa,Quarterly, V61. 50; pp: 415 -425, A

13, Lewis Coser, 06q inuieies"7in stleSt dy of Socia

Free Ptess, 1.967,-;.: , i *.

14otd forces in the news'channtlo:-68, Spring 1967:

ClaticetA Olien,""nasoral taodtwl, "' Jouraesm,

e an£ at

Limn, 19

1 Stanford University Press,

. r

Ralf Dahrendorf,d4als and

.7

1959.

4

I,

Conflict, Rev York:

Class Conflict in /hdus rialSoAety. gtanford:

Lewis.. Coser, The Functions of SoC,± -

al Conflict. Hew yo Free Press, 106.

24 Phillip J. Tichebo Jane M. Rode archon, Clarice N. Oliesind George'A..

-Donohue "Community issues, conf14ti and public affairs kAowledgp.,"

,Chapter ,2 in Peter Clarke (ed.) V-Models for 'lass Commdnication Research,

Beverly Hills:- Sage:publi6ations, 1973.

22. Henry C. Brady and Huey 'EL. LonwtDiffer,i1cesAin perceptions of program

planning proCed4res," Adult Educat*ft,.9. 23,44...2, Pp. 122-135; 1972.

/3. Cantor, op. cit. f*

14. Tiehenor, Olien and G.A. Donohnee Editers agd Extension.Agents:

How they view rural issues in,lUnnesota. agricultural Experiment station

Miscellaneous Report 74, SePtember, 1966,t

.25. John LA HultenR, "What editors and Jour...111m educators expect (routjournalial education," American Nevspape, Publishers Aseociation, News

- Research Bulletin No 12, September 16, 11171,

26. Percy H. Tenne0aum, 'Communication o f f :Lenct infermation'," Science,

Vol. 140, on 579-583, Nay /0, 1963,

Clien, G.A. ronohue and P.J. Tichenor, "Rasearch.on'purposive, communications: An evaluational tedel," met presented at Association For

Education In-Nurnalism, Fort Collins, Colorado, August:1973*. .

3

nn. N.B. Cleary and G.1. Beal, "TV producers competence in. predicting audience

reactions tb a television program: Paper presented at Socfologicai: Society -

Meeting, 'Linneapolia; MN, 1958.vb.

go.

54

1.

..

17 r.

k.

Ilobett NOnthal!, StephenS..:laratG''and paijs.in Ippile' rated treatV'ol. 124, pp., 115-121, 4arat

and Clay 1, Hall, "Teacher'expecrationn

tY, Journal or Generic Fevohology,

Y'). P. Rosenthal and L. Sacobqo leatiler

'pupils' I0 wine.,x

. 32.:

33,

William ZiEthin2.*Teachcra ptudenplarsonaldty profiled,* Adult- Education,

.

1972.-

.

.Votert`gokbrtoet, Social Tieory and Social Structure. ';el. Toek.

Dcess, P.357, T1,-,12/

expectavcie.4: De.termirann a

. An attitude u_e'vaQement t r0rjt!ft

Volt '22, pp. 13p-10, va. 2,

#

Gerry sa 1 Ball, The Second Ye' of Seine Street. A

Continving Evo atio , Vols. I and It, Princeton; Educational Te:Atinr.

er, 171.-

1611iran Stew: A 4 -L' Seriqkifor TV, Eanded S.utrx.t ion Programs. U.S..-

, nepartment of ArrIcature% in zooperation tiith Extension Service, MA

'.7). ., I ,.1,*and1 State Exten.lion Services of'the Land Grant Unlversities, 1973. .' - '

,

35. William 7 Poiminer, op. cit.

1.5. Tannenbaum, op. cit.'., .

.

37. C.N. ()lien, G.A. Donohue and PO. Tiehunor, l',73*, op. cit.

11.

r

0

fR

ti

t

r.

riv Content rTacilons ,:ttmenc, Amdfen Sourcei, and annel prowls. .

at1112i2E2....aki

2 3 , **

rce* .1.

Channel DiflerenCed_,.

,. Simnle . Group'Ckeu 1 - 21 -1

.

(7-eteor.) .(11,o--t-7T-7o...,p*c. e, .

SoctulTamiliarlAtc 4

Sale* (Max 1.3) 1.43

-S.D. -1.15

Level of InterestSeale (max 1.6) 4,91,/

. S.D.

Actor valuationScale (maw', 7)

Social.tamiliarityScale (ax *. 1) - ,1.81

S.D.. ..9

S.D.

..4.

4.85

1.79

,

5.111

.1.16. -.43 -427

, *

t

3:66 *.11 -'1.234

5-.33" 4.16 4..48 -.69

!ravel of Interest

Seale (mix ei 6) ,K 3.13

1 ,

-Actor Evaluation

Scale (max is 7) 4.80S.D. 1.5q

.0.

2.142

3:14

4.28

-.70

Ln'all'acales, scoring is in a positive direction, so 'that a higher scoreratans that the film has been, Judged as either higher in' social familiarity,

higher.ia interest, or more.positive in actor evaluation. .

. ,

** Aplus sign means the source' (or channel roup) is hi:ilaer on that scale than

the audience iample.

t

r" .. 'I r

' TA011. 4.

of Stavo Uvaltitiow; of Mull1 Stcw ri-x4p:Irvd with

Actual Pafiogz. of Sti.laor 1R'S Schoq,.

aerial rItIrtste\i

t 4_ - 41.1 s.J. - .4 . C.,$4 4 :,., ..t %., .4to . e; .1.. o 0

O ',.9 'T t ''' ..'3 a : r. , ,, _ School...7 0 00 .,

4 5, "3 14.......:(

-,

8. C D ; E ' Ri. -"' %halal44'PFNM1 gn0 .4 1U-47) 0...0,(n-1() (N017) (N''55)*(te°40) (Nr 3)1N-,140)(NO2.14) P442)1. P..1,14: `ty.111p4p, 54.-4 az,..,,,ri- '' 4 , ., ..

' .int,..1,,ttiv., titio ottt.r 71; .4.

pf,,Jgrli-t,I ,..,111v ',zateb, 11,7 82, 36,4 11i2' 18.2. 10.6 47.5 29.3. t3.3 30.5

1"-t ',...;iffKrec.-..- -18,8 757.0 + 544 -14.3 . 4.,....C #

e.,' ,r

;2. reo,',--r.,11-r (, hi 1...)?..1.:,)+:l-,4,-p,t Y t f, ,' A i '..; "ad i qv ' . .z.,,,,ulliilAn t..:: P.' ...trikn, 765 87,5 63.6 62,2 30.9 70.0 81,.8- 50,7 50.5 58.6

Ark* :Mfetetu./..s +179 .428.9 + .,i). + 3.f

b

fe::1 44, ry.` v.:, d L.,- 4,..

10.e 4-P !'VtEr

A *AAr47

44 the ru111,0,-46

r.1o;i_0, that you11,

ye.,)

*AA,Pitfiletice

41,2 5(1.0 36.4 10.9 9 30.1r 55.2 45.7 39.2 42.2

t'140 + 7.8 - 3.8 -23,3

88,2 110,0 61.6 67.6+48.9 +3(1.7 - 5.7 - 1.7

64.3 70.1 69.3

. 5. DE,/ '....t , 1 .1411it'll '..41:.

Clw %vit. Viz: kind ot clothe:.tIvAr m 1j1.A7 id:v :.;:'ar' f've,71 94.1 100.0, 90.9 91.9 156,4 73.3 80.4 72.2 64,5 70.3

A" Dirfreric. +23.8' +29,7 +20,6 +21,6 ,

.. .

.

01,4 :-ot 44 tht.' :1,.,111;o 5to.:

f:;int: na ..c, halt `.r !r Itke,

vcrtini, pvo e ',.vu .,n,-, , or rot/

(7, ,,,,-.0 88.2 100.(1 90.9 91,9 56.4 74.4 84.0' 70.0 '79.9 75,..9

Aot.t)iffm:rux +12.3 +24.1 +13.0 +16.1. :

.

ETa r).;1 of thy allon,:-$:tew P

Can' trID: till: UT:" "I rni I nd "ti ep.1 r

a krIn.lio''! ( " ..v6,,, ) 94,1 100.0 45,4 59:5 41.8 55.6 .61.5 48.6 42.1 49.7

44*01 Dii'ter-.? .+44,114 4.50.3, - 4. 3 + 9.8, ,, .

40A*Avor,:ii,.. c,tt TA tiermrA: i' 20.4 32.6 '8,9 12.9; -

:.04-t,,,r cv, e rhool reile'lqt vie.nded cne or r.ore,ollIgan Stew Zhii,7%.

th'te four non- --tu.lrot 1100p, 00.

-''0,40` "would you -f. t\tt, ,111i4.14 -..fort

UPF. rete/gfar", 631.1t VIL-V J .,111V s.1.1t e,

AbA,Avcr4,!e:41Ctvro.ncv .tike) .tsid,ht total-proirrtion,

,J) 14( .ith:r di ricr t pip hvo.tvery , Do. ctVe ro I I ,tuImnt prupI

word,'.{ .timatL, of huw..tudent...,.041a rk,1und, forPine, el&ruNEADE, or about 4 iriturtNting tee 9 to-12 mot-

r