|
Prelude
to the Legislation
Scientific and political history was made on October 4, 1957, when the
Soviet Union successfully launched Sputnik I, the world's first artificial
satellite, which was about the size of a basketball. This single event,
more than any other, marked the start of the U.S.-Soviet Union space
race.
Earlier, in 1955, the U.S. government announced plans to launch an Earth-orbiting
satellite for the International Geophysical Year (1957-1958) and designated
the Naval Research Laboratory's Vanguard proposal to represent the U.S.
But the Sputnik launch caught the world's attention and the American
public off-guard. Its size was more impressive than Vanguard's intended
3 ½ -pound payload and the public feared that the Soviets' ability
to launch satellites also translated into the capability to launch ballistic
missiles that could carry nuclear weapons from Russia to the U.S.
Then the Soviets struck again; on November 3, Sputnik II was launched,
carrying a much heavier payload, including a dog named Laika.
On January 31, 1958, the U.S. got into the race with the successful
launch of Explorer I. This satellite carried a small scientific payload
that eventually discovered the magnetic radiation belts around the Earth,
named after principal investigator, James Van Allen.
The stunning Soviet achievements led U.S. policy-makers to conclude
that the Soviets had gained a substantial advantage in scientific research,
prompting an urgent examination of the U.S. scientific establishment,
including educational preparation in areas of science and technology.
Decision
to Act
The U.S. Congress reached the conclusion that the American schools and
colleges were not producing the quantity and quality of scientific and
technical specialists necessary to keep pace with the Soviet Union. This
diagnosis propelled Congress to pass a number of emergency measures in
1958, including the National Aeronautics and Space Act (establishing NASA)
and the National Defense Education Act (NDEA). Provisions
Relevant to the Audiovisual Field
| |
Equipment.
Title III authorized grants ($70 million per year) to the states for
|
| purchase
of equipment to strengthen science, math, and foreign language
instruction. A sizable portion of these funds were used by schools
to purchase AV equipment and materials. |
| |
Fellowships.
Title IV funded 1500 fellowships per year to support three years of
|
| graduate
study for individuals intending to become college teachers. Many of
the future leaders of AECT were educated at NDEA fellowship programs
at Syracuse, Michigan State, and University of Southern California. |
| |
Language
Teaching Research and Summer Institutes. Title VI supported |
| research
on methods and materials for language teaching and area studies centers
at universities. It also provided stipends to teachers to attend summer
institutes on methods and materials for teaching. These summer institutes
introduced thousands of teachers to the new educational media, many
of whom became audiovisual specialists back in their schools…and
members of AECT. |
| |
Media
Research. Title VII promoted “research and experimentation
in more |
| effective
utilization of television, radio, motion pictures, and related media
for educational purposes.” As Saettler reports (p. 413), this
part of the act was an afterthought, instigated by lobbyists for the
audiovisual trade association, NAVA. Nevertheless, it provided, in
the first year alone, $1.6 million for 45 research projects at universities
across the U.S. |
Impact
of Title VII
A comprehensive evaluation of the impact of Title VII activities in 1968
by Filep and Schramm (cited in Saettler, p. 414) concluded that this program
was successful in bringing new researchers into the educational media
field, upgrading the quality of research, and encouraging the growth of
academic programs in educational media. It also promoted the application
of the systems approach, the development of individualized instruction,
and teacher acceptance of media.
Some commentators felt that the scientific quality of the research tended
to be rather low, and there was not a coordinated and sustained effort
to build the knowledge base systematically. Further, because there were
no specific provisions at that time for dissemination or implementation
of research findings, Title VII research did not have a commensurate impact
on day-to-day teaching practice. |