If you are an educator and have not yet heard about Channel One, then you probably are as much in need of the program as Whittle Communications claims teenagers are. Channel One is one of the biggest events in educational television in decades.
Commercialism in schools, control of information in the classroom, local versus state control of schools—these are but a few of the issues Channel One has raised (Rudinow 1990, Tate 1989). Education authorities in the country's two most populous states, California and New York, have attempted to ban Channel One; the program has been partially restricted in others (Cheatham and Cohen 1989). A number of national educational organizations have opposed it (Graves 1990).
Meanwhile, every day Channel One reaches about eight million of the nation's 13- to 18-year-olds (Rist 1991). More than 12,000 secondary schools subscribe to the program (Johnston and Brzezinski 1992). Begun in 1988 with six pilot schools, the program received favorable responses from some of these test sites (Gosewisch 1989, Hollenbert 1989, Weaver 1991).
The Channel One news program is actually only one part of a larger package for secondary schools, which includes equipment and other instructional broadcasts free of charge. A school that subscribes to the 12-minute newscast receives a satellite dish, two videocassette recorders, a television set for every classroom in the building, and the schoolwide cabling to hook it all together. In addition to the morning newscast, Whittle provides several hours of educational programming daily on the “Classroom Channel.” These are programs previously aired on the Public Broadcasting Service. A third service, the “Educator's Channel,” periodically airs staff development programs for teachers (Whittle Communications 1992).
How can all of this be free? The “catch” is that the 12-minute newscast includes 2 minutes of commercials—to cover the costs of equipment and programming. This controversial aspect of Channel One is what has made it a political football in school districts throughout the country. Is it worth exposing a captive audience of young people to manipulative advertising, in exchange for free hardware and accompanying programming? Many have dubbed it a “Faustian bargain,” wherein schools “sell their souls” for new technological capability (Rist 1989).
Now that Channel One is a part of the daily routine for millions of students, it's time to assess the educational merits of the program. Do the benefits outweigh the potential drawbacks?
Are Students Learning from Channel One?
To determine how much students gain from these broadcasts, I conducted a study in four Midwestern junior high schools. After watching two weeks of Channel One, I developed a 27-item quiz based upon the material presented. This test was then given to 303 students who had seen the broadcasts and to 216 students in schools where the program was not available. I then compared results from the Channel One and the control groups.
- 43 percent could not identify Lenin as the leader of the Communist Revolution in Russia;
- 38 percent failed to select Yeltzin as the Russian President who led resistance to the recent coup attempt;
- 40 percent did not know that KGB stood for the former Soviet spy organization;
- about half had never heard of the Cuban missile crisis;
- amazingly, over 40 percent still seemed unsure as to whether the Communist regime in the Soviet Union had come to an end.
The problem that Channel One is attempting to address clearly exists: American teenagers need to know more about what is going on in the world. Does the program succeed in educating its audience? The students who saw the broadcasts did, in fact, score higher than their counterparts who did not see the show. On the average, they correctly answered 60 percent of the questions (16); the control group answered only 52 percent of the questions (14) correctly. This difference was statistically significant at a .001 level (less than one-tenth of one percent chance that it might have occurred by chance). These results are consistent with findings from other studies of this type (Gorman and Primavera 1991, Graves 1990, Greenberg and Brand 1992, Johnston and Brzezinski 1992, Tate 1989). In general, overall scores on current events tests fall below 60 percent, and the Channel One viewers have registered knowledge gains over non-viewers that were proven statistically significant.
One other aspect of these findings is interesting. Channel One has two distinct segments. The first provides the latest news stories. Then, after the commercial break, a special feature on a wide range of topics of interest to teenagers continues for all five broadcasts in a given week. These weekly series sometimes relate to recent news developments, but not always. The two topics covered during the 10 newscasts I watched were “Teens on Television” and “Natural Disasters.” The last eight items on the test were about these segments, and Channel One viewers scored significantly higher on seven of them. Students appear to be learning from these segments.
On the news-related test items, learning gains for the Channel One group were less significant, probably, in part, because the control group students, who did not see the programs, were exposed to much of this information anyway from other news sources. The major story at that time—the collapse of Soviet Communism and the end of the Cold War—was a story of such global significance that the media coverage was extraordinarily extensive. In some ways, the timing of this study inadvertently may have been biased against Channel One's proving itself a significant information source. To not be aware of what was happening on the international scene during those two weeks would have been unusual.
How instructionally significant is the 8 percent gain in knowledge demonstrated by Channel One viewers in this study? Is it worth spending 10 minutes a day watching television in homeroom? Is it worth subjecting students to commercial advertising? Is this even the critical question here? Learning facts may not be as important (or realistic) a goal as enhancing student interest in world affairs, stimulating further investigation, encouraging discussion, and so on. To further explore Channel One's impact on students, I developed an attitude survey that was distributed to the 303 students in schools with the broadcasts.
How Do Students Feel About the Program?
Students' responses to the eight items on the survey are summarized in Figure 1. The percentages listed include all of those who indicated they either “agreed” or “strongly agreed” with the statement. The rest were either “neutral” or they “disagreed.”
Figure 1. Student Survey Results
Channel One: Good or Bad News for Our Schools? - table
Question | Agreement |
|---|---|
| 1. I usually watch most of the Channel One broadcast each day when it is shown in my school. | 58% |
| 2. I find most of the stories on Channel One interesting. Often I would like to know more. | 51% |
| 3. I think Channel One presents information in an entertaining way. | 55% |
| 4. I sometimes find it difficult to understand the material on Channel One. | 64% |
| 5. I feel that I have learned some things from the Channel One newscasts. | 66% |
| 6. The commercials are my favorite part of Channel One. | 30% |
| 7. I often see commercials on Channel One that I have never seen before at home on TV. | 39% |
| 8. I think that my school should get rid of Channel One. | 12% |
The first three items examined how engaging students found the program. The most fundamental question is whether they pay attention to it. The majority claim to watch most of the show every day. These responses were consistent with my own observations in the schools. When the newscast came on in homeroom, the noise level dropped, and most pupils appeared to be watching. Some continued to talk with their friends, but in lowered voices. Others kept on reading or writing. But clearly the majority was focused upon Channel One.
Did students find the information presented on the program interesting? About half indicated a reasonably high level of interest, to the point where they “often would like to know more.” If enhancing teenage interest in what's happening around the world is an important potential outcome of the Channel One project, it seems to be succeeding. I am currently conducting a follow-up study in several local high schools that air the program to determine how this increased level of interest may manifest itself in school discussions, further reading, and time devoted to finding out about the news from print sources and broadcasts.
Is Channel One interesting to teenagers, in part, because of how the material is offered? Most pupils felt that the program “presents information in a entertaining way.” Channel One appears deliberately designed to appeal to teenagers, in its use of adolescent argot, its choice of topics for the “weekly series” segment, and its fast-paced production style (resembling MTV). Not surprisingly, this approach seems to appeal to most of its teenage audience.
Survey items 4 and 5 dealt with learning issues. Do students understand the material presented on the program most of the time? Almost two-thirds of the subjects indicated that they sometimes have difficulty understanding the information presented. The limited background knowledge of many students this age surely contributes to this problem. At 13, one's “historical literacy” is negligible (as the aforementioned test results demonstrated). In a short program of this kind, many of the news stories are delivered in brief summation. Without an awareness of the context, students will fail to appreciate, or even understand, the information. Another reason why this particular group may have some difficulty is that the newscasts are targeted for 12- to 18-year-olds (grades 7–12), and the group of junior high school students I surveyed are at the lower rung of that age span. Presumably, comprehension levels would be higher with a high school group.
Do students perceive themselves as learning from Channel One? About two-thirds agreed that they “have learned some things from the newscasts.” While self-report as a research approach can be suspect, in this case, the response seems consistent with other findings. A significant difference in favor of the Channel One group was found on the current events test—so students do seem to be learning from the programs. However, the amount of learning registered by the entire class is probably limited by the fact that some are not watching very closely and many occasionally find the program difficult to understand.
Survey items 6 and 7 addressed the controversial issue of commercials in the broadcasts. Many opponents feared that the advertisements would be the most popular and memorable part of the program for students. However, survey responses indicated that only 30 percent named the commercials as their favorite part of Channel One. The impact of advertisements might be less significant, because most students have already seen them at home. Only about two-fifths of the students “see commercials on Channel One that I have never seen at home on TV.” The project's “commercialization of the classroom” seems more a matter of increased exposure to ads already being run on national television networks than the airing of advertising campaigns designed specifically for the Channel One school audience.
To the last survey item, which asked whether “my school should get rid of Channel One,” only 12 percent of the students agreed. The program appears to be a popular part of the day for subscribing secondary schools.
Teachers' Reaction: “Two Thumbs Up”
The teachers in both participating schools were surveyed for their reactions to Channel One. Nearly all of the surveys (39) were completed and returned, indicating perhaps the significance with which the project is perceived. The teacher survey, like the student poll, contained opportunities to indicate levels of agreement (or disagreement) with a series of statements about the newscast. The responses are summarized in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Teacher Survey Results
Channel One: Good or Bad News for Our Schools? - table2
Question | Agreement |
|---|---|
| 1. The news stories covered by Channel One are appropriate. They generally include the most important events of the previous day. | 90% |
| 2. The programs have often included material of questionable value. | 15% |
| 3. The news is presented in a clear, objective, professional style. | 97% |
| 4. The historical background provided for some of the major stories is one of the program's educationally most beneficial features. | 77% |
| 5. The “human interest” segments are on worthwhile topics that adolescents ought to know about. | 71% |
| 6. The program's pace is far too “rapid-fire.” | 15% |
| 7. The program is designed effectively for its teenage target audience. | 92% |
| 8. I strongly object to the principle of having advertisements in these programs. | 18% |
| 9. I have seen some advertisements on Channel One that were inappropriate for the target age group and should not have been aired. | 20% |
| 10. The advertisements are worth putting up with in order to get the equipment and the programming provided. | 66% |
| 11. From what I have observed, Channel One generally holds the attention of the majority of students. | 64% |
| 12. I have observed some instances of the programming stimulating discussion among students about current events. | 42% |
| 13. I think that Channel One is raising student awareness about issues and events that are important in today's world. | 63% |
| 14. I personally find Channel One programs interesting most of the time. | 87% |
| 15. My school should get rid of Channel One. | 13% |
Overall, the teachers were extremely positive about Channel One's approach to presenting the news. Nine out of 10 felt that the events covered as “newsworthy” on the broadcasts were generally appropriate; only 15 percent felt that material of questionable value had been included. Agreement was nearly unanimous that “the news is presented in a clear, objective, professional style.”
Teachers also responded very positively to two of Channel One's instructional strategies: providing historical footage related to current news topics and development of the “weekly series” segment on special topics. Almost three-quarters of the sample group agreed that the historical background provided is “one of the program's educationally most beneficial features.” More than three-quarters of the respondents felt that “the human interest segments are on worthwhile topics.”
Is the show designed effectively for adolescents? Who better to evaluate this issue than the adults who watch students react to the broadcasts every day? Only 15 percent of the teachers felt that the program's pace was “far too rapid-fire.” Over 90 percent agreed that “the program is designed effectively for its teenage target audience.”
Survey items 8 through 10 examined how teachers felt about the commercials. Only 18 percent “strongly object” to this aspect of the programs. Perhaps the degree of opposition within the teaching profession to allowing commercialism in the classroom is less significant than some have assumed. Only one out of five said that they had seen advertisements on the newscast “that were inappropriate for the target age group and should not have been aired.” Many feel that Channel One involves a trade-off: schools receive equipment and programming in exchange for advertisers' access to the student body. Survey item 10 specifically addressed this issue, and two-thirds of the teachers felt that “the advertisements are worth putting up with, in order to get the equipment and the programming provided.”
How do teachers perceive student response to the newscasts? The next three survey items explore this issue. About two-thirds feel that the program “generally holds the attention of the majority of students.” This observation seems consistent with student survey response number 1, which indicated that most of the students do watch Channel One most of the time. When asked whether the program stimulates discussion among pupils, 42 percent of the teachers said they had observed instances of this. One difficulty with exploring this issue is, of course, the limited time available in homeroom for any discussion. In the schools I visited, the program concluded just as homeroom ended, and students immediately streamed into the hallways. Any post-program discussion that took place would have occurred in the halls or later that day.
Do teachers feel that Channel One educates adolescents about world affairs? Almost two-thirds agree that Channel One raises student awareness about global issues and events.
How do teachers personally react to the programs? Again, it is clear that the newscasts are favorably received: 87 percent of the teachers indicated on item 14 that they “personally find the Channel One programs interesting most of the time.” Finally, like the students, few teachers (13 percent) agreed with the statement, “My school should get rid of Channel One.” Clearly the program is a hit with the vast majority of teachers surveyed.
Is Channel One Worth It?
Channel One seems largely successful as a journalistic enterprise designed expressly for adolescents. It appears to arouse their interest in current events, and viewers remember a bit more about the news than they otherwise would. It was popular with most of the students and the teachers I surveyed. Other studies indicate similar degrees of support (Ehman 1991, Gallup 1989, Johnston and Brzezinski 1992).
Is Channel One worth subscribing to? This question deals with far more than the issue of how many facts adolescents may learn from the news broadcasts or how interesting they find the programs. The potential benefits of obtaining Whittle's overall package could far exceed whatever educational advantages might accrue from viewing the 12-minute daily news program.
Whittle provides additional educational programming from the tape libraries of the Pacific Mountain Network (the Public Broadcasting Service's western regional branch). Plus, there is a bonanza of free television equipment—in effect, a mini-television network running throughout the entire school, with a television set in each room. Each TV has an extra connector to which a videocassette recorder can conveniently be attached, making the showing of educational videos a far more practical proposition than has previously been the case in the millions of “television-less” classrooms throughout the country. Subscription to a local commercial cable network, which many cable companies are now providing to schools free-of-charge, could provide multi-channel capability in every classroom, with opportunities to view programming from many information-based networks: the Discovery Channel, the Learning Channel, the Public Broadcasting Service, the Cable News Network, Arts and Entertainment, C-Span, and Lifetime.
Subscribing to Channel One positions a school to exploit the “video revolution.” If there are trade-offs to allowing commercialism in the public schools, perhaps public discussion should now shift to how schools that have subscribed to Channel One can truly take advantage of the opportunities provided. Even showing commercials can be an educational experience. In fact, the psychological principles of subconscious manipulation upon which advertising strategy is based should be a basic part of the next generation's education (Considine 1990, Sneed et al. 1989, Southwest Development Lab 1990).
Nationwide, 12,000 schools have already decided that the trade-off is worth it. Possibly they will make it really worthwhile by taking full advantage of the many ways in which television can enrich the educational experience.
