Paid vs unpaid interactivity
Interactive learning can be active or passive, paid or unpaid.

I've been trying to think of a way to slip payment into courseware, mixing entertainment and reward into the learning experience, but I haven't found it yet.

Most textbooks don't even offer intrinsic pleasure. "Proof left as exercise for reader" doesn't get there at all.

Schools reward learning only with status (grades), which grows up into the tenure system that also runs mainly on status (rank).

Apprenticeships and business-based training schools are closer to the learn-to-earn setup, with guaranteed JOBS on graduation.

= = = = =

I've been noticing and enjoying both types of interactivity in old radio, which led me to think about the same distinction in education.



Four examples of unpaid interactivity:

MacHarrie's Guess What and Mel Blanc's Are you a genius were formatted as self-scoring tests, with no payment beyond the intrinsic satisfaction of thinking and learning.

Blackstone's magic show was on the line between paid and unpaid. Each episode featured instructions for a parlor trick. If you listened carefully and practiced the trick, you'd be rewarded with enjoyment at parties and the chance to win real bets with friends.

Dick Tracy had an elaborate scheme of clubs and codes. You were supposed to decode a message in each episode to 'help' Tracy escape the clutches of fiendish villains. I didn't see any direct payment, but you could send for badges and insignia to reward your club members for superior performance. Using status, as in school.

= = = = =

Two contrasting examples of paid interactivity:

The big national quiz Truth or Consequences was too much like Powerball. The prizes were astronomical** and the odds were astronomical. The questions were NOT educational.

The Chicago-based Calling All Detectives was a far more practical and winnable lottery. Much more like actual work, pay for value. Each local station called a listener every day, asking a question about a detail of today's episode. Especially in smaller markets, your odds of winning were 'imaginable'. The prize was also realistic. On WGN, the originating station, Sealy Mattresses offered a new mattress. Everyone can use a new mattress, and it's a prize worth EARNING.

= = = = =

I went in search of a trade journal with templates for such lotteries. I started by looking at Broadcast magazine from the same month as the best Detectives episodes.

Immediately I found the opposite! At that exact moment the FCC was making a big push to HALT such lotteries, which explains why I hadn't heard them in more recent shows.

Broadcast Magazine said:

The FCC is embarrassed because it stubbed its bureaucratic toe on its proposed giveaway ban. It has made a hasty and strategic retreat. But the war isn't over. There appears to be no question now that the FCC lacks jurisdiction over lotteries and gift enterprises, per se. Congress, without fanfare last June, repealed the lottery section of the Communications Act, along with the section dealing with obscene, profane and indecent language. It transferred jurisdiction to the Department of Justice, under the revised Criminal Code, which becomes operative Sept. 1. Why the FCC's highly-placed lawyers muffed this one becomes a matter of administrative concern for the FCC itself.

But broadcasters shouldn't delude themselves. What the FCC cannot do directly it probably can achieve in other ways. The FCC is the licensing body. It can take judicial notice of violations of any statutes. It determines the qualifications of licensees. It may be a longer, more tortuous course, but it's there.

Any broadcasting designed to "buy" the radio audience, by requiring it to listen in hope of reward rather than for the quality of entertainment should be avoided. Voluntary adherence to that precept will do it. In one fell swoop, it will achieve everything the reputable broadcaster has sought for a quarter century. It will make good programming the yardstick. It will disarm the Government's crusade toward greater program controls. It will quell the Congressional clamor for tightening up of the law. It will end the free rides of manufacturers who give things away like mad for the air credits. It will create new business for radio.

Note the realistic grasp of Parkinson. Bureaucracies don't use laws. They do what they want to do. The response is also realistic. Lobbying is pointless. Just obey and hope to bore the demons.

We aren't allowed to think realistically now. We are required to blame The Horrible Other Party for the permanent laws of power. If only we can elect more of My Wonderful Party, all problems will magically disappear.

But the magazine was STUPIDLY WRONG when it called giveaways disreputable. These PAID LEARNING EXPERIENCES were deeply educational. Each of these surviving programs contained serious and accurate representations of geography and history and science. Even if the subject matter was typical soap opera, the MENTAL EXERCISE of strategic listening would be good for your brain. Blanc and MacHarrie urged you to listen with paper and pencil in hand, invoking MUSCLE MEMORY.

Whether you earned the mattress or not, you were earning learning. And that's a vastly better prize than a mattress.


= = = = =

** Astronomical: At one point the Truth or Consequences prize was: A new house, new furniture and appliances, a complete wardrobe every year for life, a complete set of jewelry, a new Buick convertible, a yacht, and an AIRPLANE. For most listeners, the Buick and the clothing would be a net gain, but the rest would throw you into bankruptcy. (New house = maintenance, insurance and property taxes every year, not covered by the prize.)

Labels: Entertainment, Experiential education, Parkinson

  ¶ 11:17 PM