A Computer-Based Graphics Course and Students' Cognitive Skills

Abstract

This article began as I struggled with a phenomenon I could not understand, a delightful educational outcome that caught me unprepared. In the spring of 1993, after two and a half years of teaching visual communications and graphic design with old fashioned cutand-paste methods, I taught a design course in a computerized classroom for the first time. The students' projects were far beyond my expectations. While there were problems and imperfections, their design projects struck me as creative, risk-taking, and visually sophisticated. They went far beyond the level of previous students in non-computerized courses, and not merely in terms of the slickness of the laser-printed, color products. Since then, I have tried to discover why this and subsequent work was so good that it actually excites me. I have also tried to understand what kind of learning was going on in the minds of my students. Obviously, the computer was a variable, but I wanted to determine if there were other essential parts of the equation. In attempting to answer this question for myself, I have surveyed students in the course, reviewed the literature on computerbased education in journalism and mass communication, and - most fruitfully, for my own understanding and teaching practices - I have turned to three theoretical perspectives from educational psychology. While most of the literature on computerized pedagogy in journalism and mass communications comes from the social science perspective, this paper is an attempt to turn the discussion in the direction of educational theory in the belief that it has something valuable to say to both opponents and proponents of computerized instruction. It synthesizes my five years of experience in computerized instruction with three major theories: the seven principles of good practice in undergraduate education (Chickering & Gamson, 1991), the cognitive apprenticeship model (Collins, 1987), and Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives (1956). While much of the discussion of computers has seen them as new technologies replacing older ones - processors for type writers, spread sheets for calculators, pixel manipulators for wet darkrooms - this article will consider them as tools for teaching and learning. It will argue that a complete integration of carefully designed computer experiences into a course - when coupled with sound educational theory and practice-engages students at the level of the higher cognitive skills. Research results A review of the research published in Journalism and Mass Communication Educator during the past 12 years reveals there is no consensus on either the value of, or the proper role for, computer technologies in our discipline. In more than 57 articles published between Winter 1986 and Spring 1998, the authors' assessment, of the value of computers ranged from mild enthusiasm to begrudging tolerance to disapproving skepticism. These were not simply opinionated commentaries or personal reports based on anecdotal evidence. Most of the articles were based on quantitative studies. They produced results that appear to be diametrically opposed. Several authors argued that computer technologies did not increase learning outcomes. Renfro and Maittlen-Harris (1986) found that increasing the time on the computer did not improve the writing of beginning journalism students. A study at Texas Tech University (Oates, 1987) concluded that word processing does not, in and of itself, encourage student writers to revise more extensively, especially the macrostructure of a text. Using a pretest-posttest design, Fischer and Grusin (1993) found writing performance was not increased by the use of grammar-checking software in a beginning news writing class. In a study of how effective a computer-mediated communication system was in supplementing a media law course, Smith (1994) found no significant difference in the final exam scores of students in on-line and traditional sections. …