This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
Allen, W. H. Instructional media research: Past, present, and future.AV Communication Review, 1971,19, 5–18.
Arendt, H. Reflections: Thinking. Part one.The New Yorker, November 21, 1977, 53(41), 128.
Arnheim, R.Film as art. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1957.
Arnheim, R.Visual thinking. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969.
Averill, L. A. Educational possibilities of the motion picture.Educational Review, November 1915, 392–448.
Barthes, R. [Elements of semiology] (A. Lavers & C. Smith, trans.). New York: Hill & Wang, 1967.
Bazin, A.What is cinema? Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967.
Bettetini, G.Language and technique of film. The Hague: Mouton, 1973.
Cherry, C.On human communication. New York: Wiley, 1961.
Cloninger, S. J. A matter of time.American Film, December–January 1978, 3(3), 56–57.
Fielding, R. Survey of theses and dissertations on film in the U.S. colleges and universities.Journal of the University Film Association, 1968, 20(2), 46–53; 1969, 22(4), 111–113; 1972, 24(3), 75–78; 1974, 26(3), 45–51. (Also inDissertations on film. New York, Arno Press, in press.)
Fischer, L. Film and the university: Myths of film study.University Film Study Center Newsletter (Box 275, Cambridge, MA 02138). 1975, 6(1), 1.
Gerbner, G. Toward a general model of communication.AV Communication Review, 1956, 4, 171–199.
Hoban, C. F., Jr.Instructional films: State of the art. Stanford: Stanford University, ERIC Clearinghouse, 1971.
Hoban, C. F., Jr. A current view of the future of theory and research in educational communication. A speech delivered April 11, 1973, to the Research and Theory Division, AECT, Las Vegas, Nevada.
Hoban, C. F., Jr., & Van Ormer, E. B. (Eds.).Instructional film research (rapid mass learning) 1918–1950. Pennsylvania State University, 1951. (Also, New York: Arno Press.)
Kracauer, S.Theory of film: The redemption of physical reality. New York: Oxford University Press, 1960.
Lashley, K. S., & Watson, J. S.A psychological study of motion pictures in relation to general disease campaigns. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Interdepartmental Social Hygiene Board, 1922.
Levi-Strauss, C. [Structural anthropology] C. Jacobson & B. G. Schoepf, (trans.). Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday Anchor Books, 1967.
Levi-Strauss, C.The raw and the cooked. New York: Harper & Row, 1969.
May, M.Learning from films. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1958.
MacCann, R. D. Film scholarship: Dead or alive?Journal of the University Film Association, 1976, 28(1), 3–10. (Also see Fredericksen, D. Film study, literature, criticism, and science: A polemical response to Richard Dyer MacCann.Journal of the University Film Association, 1977, 29(2), 21–29.)
Meierhenry, W. C. The role of media in education.Sightlines, Spring 1977, 13–18.
Merleau-Ponty. [The film and the new psychology.] In H. L. Drefus & P. A. Drefus (Eds. and Wans.),Sense and nonsense. Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University Press, 1964.
Metz, C. [A semiotics of the cinema: Film language] Taylor, (trans.). New York: Oxford University Press, 1974.
Miller, N. E. (Ed.). Graphic communication and the crisis in education.AV Communication Review, 1957, 5(3).
Olsen, D. R.Media and symbols: The forms of expression, communication, and education (73rd Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education). Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974.
Pryluck, C.Sources of meaning in motion pictures and television. New York: Arno Press, 1976.
Sapir, E.Language. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1921. Also see Whorf, B. L.Language, thought, and reality. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press, 1956. Also Piaget, J. Language and thought from the genetic point of view. In D. Elkind (Ed.),Six psychological studies. A. Tenzer (trans.) New York: Random House, 1967.
Sarris, A.The American cinema: Directors and directions 1929–1968. New York: E. P. Dutton & Co., 1968. Also see “Notes on theauteur theory in 1962,” Winter 1962–63,Film Culture, 27. Sassure, F. de. [A course in general linguistics] (W. Baskin, trans.). New York: Philosophical Library, 1959.
Schramm, W.The process and effects of mass communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1954. AlsoMotion pictures and real-life violence; What the research says. Stanford, Cal.: Stanford University, 1968.
Seldes, G.The great audience. New York: Viking Press, 1950.
Snider, R. C. Is MBO the way to go?: A teacher’s guide to management by objectives. Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1975.
Sumstine, D. R. A comparative study of visual instruction in the high school.School and Society, 1918, 7, 235–238.
Vogel, A.Film as a subversive art. New York: Random House, 1974.
Also see Postman, N. and Weingartner, C.Teaching as a subversive activity. New York: Delacorte Press, 1969.
Wagner, R. W. The needs of film/TV education, 1977.Journal of the University Film Association, 1977, 29(2), 31–38.
Wollen, P.Signs and meaning in the cinema. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1969.
Worth, S. The uses of film in education and communication. In D. Olsen (Ed.),Media and symbols: The forms of expression, communication, and education (73rd Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education). Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974.
Wylie, P.Generation of vipers. New York: Rinehart, 1942.
Youngblood, G.Expanded cinema. New York: E. P. Dutton, 1970.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wagner, R.W. Film research: The need for a new breed. ETCJ 26, 65–78 (1978). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02766576
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02766576