RESEARCH DIGEST

NAME: Dalagonan, Levi Mark SCORE: _________

I. INTRODUCTION
1. Given the topic, what area In the topic discussed in the study, the SCORE:
is the “gap” or least area that was least explored was on the
explored? other different approaches to
documentary because the only
approaches presented were the comedy
oriented one and the traditional
approach.
2. What is the study Is there a difference on the impact of SCORE:
investigating (research comedy approach and traditional
problem? State in question approach on raising awareness and
form. public engagement among its viewers?
3. List 3 information (bullet-  Narrative presentation is very SCORE:
style) in the introduction essential because it presents the
that you find most different conditions surrounding a
certain issue discussing further the
relevant/important?
whys and hows
 Since audiences are diverse,
documentary makers, directors
and media people are challenged
how to cater their diverse needs
and preferences also
 Poverty is a worldwide problem
faced by any state whether it is a
Third World, Second World or a
Third World country.
II. METHOD
4. What are the important The researchers of the study used the SCORE:
specifics of the tool? pre-post experimental tool to attest
whether differences on impact levels
exist. Pre-post evaluation was used to
know the background knowledge of the
respondents on the impact of poverty,
diseases and malnutrition to humanity.
Post-test evaluation was carried out to
know if their insights to poverty changed
after watching two different
documentaries
5. In your own words, how  All the participants were given a SCORE:
was the data gathered? survey to answer questions about
(List the summarized poverty
 Then, they watched the
process in bullet style)
documentaries simultaneously
 After that, a post-test were given
to them to know if the
documentaries changed their views
6. How was the data analyzed SPSS Process Macro together with SCORE:
or interpreted? ANOVA and Regressional Analysis were
used to interpret data.
III. FINDINGS
7. Based on the research Finding 1 SCORE:
problem identified, what Stand Up Planet received more positive
is/are the finding/s scores and computation when it comes
(result/s) and important to entertainment and documentary value
explanation and a.) Important Explanation
corroboration? This only means that Stand Up Planet
can engage more viewers because it is
entertaining and appeals more to
people’s humuor
b.) Corroboration
Moyer-Gusé, Mahood, & Brookes, 2011
stated that entertainment and humuor
based documentaries are good but it do
not answer actually the purpose of the
message carried out.
Finding 2
The End Game received lower scores
from the viewers stating that it is too
boring and cannot transport them
effectively
a.) Important Explanation
Negative emotions and approach of the
End Game is ineffective because it does
not help the audience fully grasp the
message. Instead of viewing they might
end with sleeping in the documentary
watching room
b.) Corroboration
Green and Brock (2000) stated that
sober documentaries are ineffective
because not all viewers can stand with
its traditional attack to the subject unlike
those that offer humour and other
 entertainment elements but the good
thing is sober documentaries actually
relay more accurately the message
conveyed compared to the latter

IV. CONCLUSION
8. Identify one important Approaches to documentaries may be SCORE:
conclusion expressed in different but despite of these differences,
your own words all must still be appreciated because they
have the same agenda and that is to
raise awareness and public engagement.