The recent discussion about whether a color video of the Bandura 
experiment would be more "relevant" to students got me thinking about 
the issue a little more broadly. Indeed, the very phenomenon being 
demonstrated in the Bandura film -- social modeling -- interacts quite 
remarkably with with the topic.

Many people's response to their belief that today's students would react 
with indifference to a b&w video was to think of what sort of thing 
would better engage their attention: a color video (I have my doubts 
that mere color video seems all that "new" and "relevant" to students 
raised in the internet age, but let us continue).  I think that is a 
self-defeating response. It reinforces the students' (false) view (if 
indeed students would respond in the way presumed) that any information 
presented in "old" technology must itself be obsolete, and that by 
making it color we would raise its level of "relevance" to the students 
Indeed, by succumbing to the presumed demand that everything be "new," 
we ourselves model (to use Bandura's term) very poor academic judgment 
for our students.

Instead, we should model good academic judgment: rather than rushing 
about find a more "entertaining" format in which to present the 
information, we should demonstrate how to evaluate the information 
presented and how to ignore intellectually unimportant aspects. Indeed 
(the historian in me says), we should be pointing out the ways in which 
the authentic historical artifact (even if b&w) is actually more 
interesting, more fascinating, and more informative, than some 
artificial, "eye-candied" mockup produced more recently in order to 
better attract the attention of the unsophisticated user.

For one thing, in addition to seeing the original phenomenon being 
demonstrated (violence being modeled by adults for children), we get to 
see exactly how this phenomenon was presented to the audience of the 
time in which it was made, and we can investigate what aspects of that 
particular presentation appealed most to audiences of that era. In 
short, we can study it not only as a /scientific/ phenomenon, but also 
as a /historical/ phenomenon. For instance, what impact do you think the 
recent adoption of television in nearly all the homes of America, the 
presence of the Viet Nam war on the nightly newscasts, the highly 
publicized protests of the war (and other issues) on the streets, 
several high-profile political assassinations, and the rise in urban 
violence around that time had on the scholarly and popular "uptake" of 
the Bandura experiment in decade after it was first published (1961)? 
Would it have had the same impact, say 10 years earlier (right after 
WWII, in the midst of the Korean War, and the McCarthy hearings)? What 
about 20 years later (in the wake of the defeat of the ERA, the election 
of Reagan, the rollback of government intervention in the economy, the 
early rise to political power of evangelical Christians).

In short, when students are bored by important information we should be 
prepared to show them what is intellectually interesting about it, not 
just try to frame it in a superficially more entertaining way.

Regards,
Chris
-- 

Christopher D. Green
Department of Psychology
York University
Toronto, ON M3J 1P3
Canada

 

416-736-2100 ex. 66164
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.yorku.ca/christo/



"Part of respecting another person is taking the time to criticise his 
or her views." 

   - Melissa Lane, in a /Guardian/ obituary for philosopher Peter Lipton

=================================


---
To make changes to your subscription contact:

Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])

Reply via email to