Hmmm, was this response to my comment that more recent demonstrations of behavioral principles might be more convincing to our students if they were of more recent vintage? It was a rather casual comment in response to others expressing concern that the original demonstrations are dated and in B & W, therefore, can sometimes appear as irrelevant to our 'sophisticated' students. But I in no way meant to throw out 'the baby with the bath water' as these original and classically historical videos are extremely valuable and historic documents of immense interest. I agree with every positive benefit mentioned by Chris for how these original historical videos can be used effectively in many classes. They show us all where it all began and certainly shouldn't be discarded due to their dated appearance.
My major hypothesis was NOT for us to consider making more "superficially entertaining" videos, whatever that was meant to imply. (Who introduced the concept of being "superficial entertainment" into this conversation? Think there might be some confabulation going on here.) I also am not all that concerned about color versus B & W, though that was the initial thread. What I do think is important is that, if we wish our typical Psychology 101 students to be impressed with social modeling, it might be helpful to provide demonstrations where the participants are of an age and background similar to that of our students. Joan [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 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]) --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
