4.3 Technical Perspective

4.3.1 Definition

The earliest models in the study of media and audiences were based on a conception of transmission. They developed in direct response to the advent of mass communication technologies that revolutionized the scale and speed of communication, The original intent was to assess the effects that the new and ubiquitous media systems had on their audience members and on society. From the beginning, research was highly influenced by mass media's potential to distribute singular messages from a central point in space to millions of individuals in a one-way flow of information.

The components of the models stemmed from Lasswell's (1948) question of "Who says what to whom with what effect?" Some of the earliest theoretical work in mass communication was done in conjunction with the development of electronic mass media and was grounded in information theory. This approach examined both the process of how information is transmitted from the sender to the receiver and the factors that influence the extent to which communication between individuals proceeds in a meaningful fashion. As telephone, radio, and television technologies advanced, researchers looked for scientific means of efficiently delivering messages from one person to another. In this case, efficient meant the degree that rational judgments are facilitated (Lasswell, 1948, p. 46). The person receiving the message should receive only the verbal or electronic signals intentionally sent by another person. These theories were based on 19th-century ideas about the transfer of energy (Trenholm, 1986). Such scientific theories held that research phenomena could be broken into component parts governed by universal laws that permitted prediction of future events. In short, the technical perspective on communication held that objects (for example, messages, their senders and receivers, etc.) follow laws of cause and effect.

One of the most popular examples of the technical perspective is the mathematical model of Shannon and Weaver (1949), developed during their work for Bell Laboratories (see Fig. 4-1).

The engineering focus of this work treated information as a mathematical constant, a fixed element of communication. Once a message source converted an intended meaning into electronic signals, this signal was fed by a sender through a channel to a receiver that converted the signal into comprehensible content for the destination of the message. Any interference in the literal transfer of the message (e.g., from electronic static, lack of knowledge about the communication system, or uncertainty on the part of either party) constituted noise that worked against the predictability of communication. If noise were kept at a minimum, the effect of a message on the destination could be predicted based on the source's intent. One important distinction in this model is the difference between information and meaning (Klapp, 1982). The former refers to bits of messages that reduce uncertainty between sources and destinations. The latter refers to making sense of information, or finding a comprehensible pattern among information bits.

4.3.2 Elements of Communication

The technical perspective, or transmission paradigm (Devito, 1986), sees communication as a linear process composed of several material objects: source, message, channel, noise, receiver, information, redundancy, entropy, and fidelity. Many of these concepts have remained fundamental concepts of communication theory since Shannon and Weaver's original work. Because of the emphasis on the transmission of the source's intended message, less attention was focused on outcomes or effects on the receiver. The greater the degree of similarity between the intention of the source and the outcome or effect at the receiver end, the more "successful" the communication was considered to be. If the intended effect did not occur, a breakdown in communication was assumed. Messages within information theory are bits of information that have any impact on uncertainty or the receiver's decision making process. The concept of feedback was added later to account for messages the sender transmitted to gauge the success of each message. This notion was derived from learning theory, which provided for the teacher's "checks" on students' comprehension and learning (Heath & Bryant, 1992).

The channel in this perspective was linked to several other terms, including the signal, the channel's information capacity, and its rate of transmission. The technical capabilities of media were fundamental questions of information theory. The ability of senders and receivers to encode and decode mental intentions into/from various kinds of signals (verbal, print, or electronic) were paramount to successful communication. Each of these concepts emphasized the technical capabilities of media and the message source.

Two additional components critical within this perspective are redundancy and entropy. The former refers to the amount of information that must be repeated to overcome noise in the process and achieve the desired effect. Entropy, on the other hand, is a measure of randomness. It refers to the degree of choice one has in constructing messages. If a communication system is highly organized, the message source has little freedom in choosing the symbols that successfully communicate with others. Hence, the system would have low entropy and could require a great deal of redundancy to overcome noise. A careful balance between redundancy and entropy must be maintained in order to communicate successfully.

In the case of mass communication systems, the elements of the technical perspective have additional characteristics (McQuail, 1983).The sender, for instance, is often a professional communicator or organization, and messages are often standardized products requiring a great deal of work to produce, carrying with them an exchange value (for example, television air time that is sold as a product to advertisers). The relationship of sender and receiver is impersonal and noninteractive. A key feature here, of course, is that traditional notions of mass communication envision a single message source communicating to a vast audience with great immediacy. This audience is a heterogeneous, unorganized collection of individuals that share certain demographic or psychological characteristics with subgroups of their fellow audience members.

4.3.3 Assumptions and Research

The technical perspective of communication, including information theory and the mathematical model of Shannon and Weaver, adopts three major assumptions about communication (Trenholm, 1986). First, it assumes that the components of communication execute their functions in a linear, sequential fashion. Second, consequently, events occur as a series of causes and effects, actions and reactions. The source's message is transmitted to a receiver, who either displays or deviates from the intended effect of the source's original intent. Third, the whole of the communication process, from this engineering perspective, can be viewed as a sum of the components and their function. By understanding how each element receives and/or transmits a signal, the researcher may understand how communication works.

These assumptions have important consequences for the bulk of research conducted under a technical perspective (Fisher, 1978). First, and most importantly, it focuses attention on the channel of communication. Concepts such as the signal capacity of a given medium, the ability to reduce noise in message transmissions, and increased efficiency or fidelity of transmissions were important goals for researchers of new communication technologies. The use of multiple channels of communication (e.g., verbal and visual) also received a great deal of attention. These concepts, however, could be researched on more than a purely technological basis.

4.3.4 Discussion of Representative Research

4.3.4.1. Research on Radio. Early studies focusing primarily on the communication channel emerged from research on the fledging medium, radio. The entrance of major corporations into radio advertising, beginning around 1928, inspired interest in how to best introduce products to listeners and to influence listeners' buying habits. J. B. Watson--generally regarded as the founder of behavioral science--was hired by a major advertising agency in the early 1930s to conduct studies on listener recall, recognition of product names, and willingness to buy advertised goods. Soon, numerous psychologists and sociologists (often sponsored by advertisers and networks) studied listeners' recall of radio content, as well as its influence on their behavior.

Another study of radio's role in reaching audience members emerged from the broadcast of the infamous 1938 "War of the Worlds," which inspired academic interest in how mass media could mobilize audiences who received and were affected by information (see, for example, Cantril, 1935). Concern with radio's ability to generate "serious" learning through educational programming and radio's threat to traditional learning from books became the focus of initial work (Lazarsfeld, 1940). This research analyzed learning from radio as knowledge acquisition and socialization. Researchers found that radio's potential to facilitate learning through instructional programs was thwarted by the fact that people at lower levels of educational achievement were least likely to listen to educational radio programs (or to read educational books). On the other hand, researchers found that listeners reported acquiring important forms of knowledge from entertainment programs such as quiz shows and soap operas--knowledge ranging from historical facts to lessons on how to be a successful wife (Herzog, 1948; Lazarsfeld, 1940).

4.3.4.2. Media Comparison Research. Media comparison studies provide the best example of technical perspective research in the application of instructional technologies in classroom settings. These studies took Shannon and Weaver's model as the point of departure and focused primarily on the mode of delivery in a classroom setting. The primary assumption underlying this research orientation was that the instructional effectiveness of each medium was constant across all content and all students. Thus, the basic research design consisted of assigning subjects to treatment conditions in which the same instructional content was presented by different media. The most common comparisons were between new media and traditional (that is, lecture/discussion) classroom instruction. The "best" medium in these studies was the one that "caused" the highest posttest scores on comprehension and recall of content. Clark and Salomon (1985) have characterized this period as being preoccupied by "an intensive search for the 'one best medium."' Schramm (1977) discussed this approach as a search for a "super-medium."

A series of meta-analyses (Cohen, Ebling & Kulik, 1981; Glass, 1976; Jamison, Suppes & Welles, 1974; Kulik, Bangert & Williams, 1983; Kulik, Kulik & Cohen, 1979) suggested that students in treatments using media systems consistently scored slightly better on tests than did those in traditional classroom contexts. Modest positive gains in learning were noted with a variety of media and individual content areas (for example, math, science, foreign language). However, many individual studies have shown no significant differences between modes of delivery. No one medium emerged as consistently better or worse in delivering information to students.

In media comparison studies, measures of learning are typically pretest-posttest assessments of knowledge acquisition, comprehension, and retention; traditionally this research has focused on lower-order thinking skills. The media comparison perspective relies heavily on the application of behavioral teaching objectives (Mager, 1962), which stipulate the desired terminal behavior and the conditions under which it is to be performed. For example, "After being presented with verbal definitions of 10 new words, a child will be able to correctly identify at least 8 of those words and their correct definitions on a multiple-choice test." Thus the goal of media comparison studies is to show alternative means of committing information to long-term memory (as framed under cognitive learning theories) (Mayer, 1987).

Scholars have noted repeatedly the difficulties and limitations of this approach (see, for example, Clark, 1983; 1991; Krendl, 1989; Mielke, 1968; Schramm, 1977). The most serious criticisms focus on the inevitable confounding of instructional method and content in media comparison studies. Typically, the introduction of a new media system is accompanied by changes in curricular materials. For example, material taught through lecture may have to be redesigned for presentation over television, causing substantial changes in how the material is explained or elaborated on during the lesson. Thus, differences emerging from the treatment groups are likely attributable to differences in the curriculum rather than differences in the instructional effectiveness of the delivery systems.

Clark (1983, 1991) has also argued that the media comparison model fails to control for novelty effects linked to the new instructional mode. He proposed that the novelty of working with a computer, for example, will motivate some students to learn, aside from the medium's ability to teach. Positive learning effects attributed to the new media system might be more appropriately assigned to the novelty effect rather than the effectiveness of the delivery system. Media comparison studies are classic applications of Shannon and Weaver's technical model of communication. The delivery technology is seen as the primary variable in the learning process. The inherent differences between technologies are framed as the key to more or less effective instruction. Manipulations by the sender (in this case, the instructor) are measured in students' varying levels of information comprehension and retention.

As researchers began to expand such concepts to the abilities of humans to transmit, receive, and process messages, a second perspective of communication took hold that focused on psychological dimensions of the communication process.