Profile-based shortening removed more sentences and more presentation time than script writers' cuts¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q3
Currency · newest study 1955 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Script writers removed 11 percent of sentences (8 percent of duration) while the profile version removed 26 percent of sentences (24 percent of presentation time). → Fletcher 1955

Evidence¶

Fletcher 1955¶

Fletcher, Richard M. (1955). Profile Analysis and Its Effect on Learning When Used To Shorten Recorded Film Commentaries. Technical Report SDC Z69-7-55, Instructional Film Research Program, Pennsylvania State University. https://eric.ed.gov/?q=Fletcher+profile+analysis+film+commentaries

q3 · i? · causal · r1

Results description of the Human Reproduction commentary comparisons: the profile method cut roughly twice as much material as script writers, with the printed percentages reported descriptively; no effect size is given.

"Script writers cut out 11 percent of the sentences which was 8 percent of the duration while the profile version had 26 percent of the sentences removed which took 24 percent of the presentation time."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Modified film commentaries were consistently superior to the original commentary although differences were not statistically significant at a high level of confidence — related
• The report projects that pre-production profile analysis could have increased Human Reproduction learning by 31 percent — related
• The profile-shortened version of a film commentary produced learning equal to the longer script writers' and full versions — related