COMPUTER-ASSISTED INSTRUCTION RESEARCH IN JOURNALISM:
A LITERATURE REVIEW
By Eric Wiltse
Written summer semester 1997
INTRODUCTION
Does computer-assisted instruction affect the news writing of college journalism students? Numerous studies in other academic areas have investigated whether computer-assisted instruction (CAI) improves the performance of students as compared to traditional instructional methods. However, little published research has been done to date on whether CAI is effective as a tool to teach journalistic skills (Smith, 1993).
Generally, CAI simply means effective use of computer technology in an educational setting. More specifically, compared to computer based education (CBE), computer assisted learning (CAL) and similar instruction methods, CAI refers to drill-and-practice, tutorial, or simulation activities offered either by themselves or as supplements to traditional, teacher-directed instruction (Cotton & Wikelund, 1992) .
Little research has been done on CAI�s effect on journalistic writing. Most of the research on CAI's effects upon writing has concentrated on English composition classes and has taken two tracks: 1). Whether using computers instead of paper and ink improves writing; and 2). whether computer programs result in enhanced student achievement over more traditional learning methods, such as workbooks or instructor comments.
This paper will review the literature dealing with CAI's effects on various aspects of journalistic writing, including rewriting news stories, proof-reading, critical thinking, keeping student journals, and using text analysis and grammar-checking software. The paper will also discuss some of the central issues of adopting CAI, such as cost-effectiveness and efficiency, for a journalism curriculum.
LITERATURE REVIEW
In a study of 44 undergraduate journalism majors in news writing classes, Smith (1993) looked at whether CAI would affect student performance in rewriting stories. Half of the students rewrote the first or lead paragraph of a story with the help of a computer program that provided feedback, while the other half rewrote the lead using the instructor's written comments. Comparing pre-tests to post-tests, the research found that students who used the computer program rewrote their leads more successfully than the other students. Data analysis was computed by non-directional t-tests and a median test of how professional journalists rated the students� work.
Smith's 1990 study of student attitudes toward CAI also compared students who used a computer program to rewrite leads to students who received only instructor feedback. Gathering data by a survey with a five-point scale, Smith used t-tests that showed significant statistical evidence at the .01 level of significance that the computer group judged the assignment more interesting, believed they learned more, and thought they received more feedback as well as more useful feedback than did the paper group.
Not all researchers have found such high levels of student satisfaction with CAI. Fischer and Grusin (1993) hypothesized that student performance and satisfaction would be higher among those who used grammar checking software rather than students who received only instructor feedback on their stories. However, neither hypothesis was supported by data. There was no significant difference between the groups on the pre-test or post-test.
A Likert-type scale was used to measure student satisfaction. In contrast to Smith's finding of increased student satisfaction with CAI, Fisher and Grusin�s study found that the mean satisfaction score for students who did not use the grammar checkers was significantly higher than the mean for the computer group.
Previous studies of grammar-checking software also questioned its effectiveness as CAI. Kiefer (1992) stated that the programs were difficult to use for basic English writing classes and were "simply not worth the time and effort" (p. 208) to explain to students.
As newspapers and magazines have become computerized in the last decade, virtually all writing and editing is now done on monitors. But is proof-reading, another component of rewriting, more effective on monitors or on paper? Noting the correlation between good writing and revision, Oliver (1994) investigated whether computer-studies students catch and correct more writing errors on computer screens than on print-outs of identical stories. His study revealed that students proof-reading on paper located slightly more errors than did students proof-reading on screens. Confirming previous studies, Oliver also found that proof-reading on paper was faster than on computer monitors.
CAI also has been studied as a means of developing critical-thinking skills during the writing process. Bacig, Evans and Larmouth (1991) compared pencil-and-paper and a computer program versions of college freshman writing instruction. Primarily, they looked at whether CAI would help students make reasoned arguments and logically organize their writing. Data analysis suggested that the CAI version improved students' ability to write with logic and reason.
Keeping a journal can help journalism students bridge the gap between mass media theory and news-writing experience, Tarnove (1988) stated. Specifically, journals allow the instructor to check whether students understand course material and to clarify any misconceptions. Written journals also are one way to improve communication between teachers and students, Von Holzen (1996) added, but when classes don't meet everyday, as at universities, the exchange is slowed down. He compared students in a university freshman computer literacy class who wrote journals on e-mail versus notebook journals. The results were that students who used e-mail wrote fewer entries in their journals, but they were longer than the entries of the notebook group, especially on discussion questions. Students who kept journals by e-mail also responded that they would strongly prefer to write e-mail journals rather than notebook journals in the future.
DISCUSSION
Although some of the findings about the effectiveness of CAI in writing classes were inconclusive or conflicting, students who received CAI often seemed to enjoy using the programs and believed that CAI improved their learning. Their perceptions were not always supported by the research, but students seemed to be more motivated by learning with computers.
Smith (1993) commented:
The fact that the students found the computer versions of the exercises more interesting, and did not learn significantly less from them, suggests that the computer versions, even without further improvement, may be useful in increasing student satisfaction with a course and in motivating students to engage in learning activity on their own (p. 58).
However, both his study and the grammar-checking software research point out a flaw in CAI -- that students tended to use the computer programs as shortcuts to finish assignments, rather than as learning strategies to understand the theories and concepts behind writing. Fischer and Grusin (1993) even concluded that "grammar checkers may detract from the learning rather than enhance it" (p. 26).
One issue that is not addressed is the cost of preparing software for use in the classroom, when products are not available commercially. Smith (1993) programmed the rewriting exercise for his research himself. Considered his cost in time alone, was it worth his effort for the limited results in improved learning by his students?
On the other hand, using computers rather than paper for some writing assignments certainly is cheaper and more efficient. For example, Oliver (1994) noted that printers in busy computer labs can often get tied up when a large class tries to print out materials. Even though research indicates that paper is faster than screens for proof-reading, practicing proof-reading on computer monitors rather than on print-outs may actually save time under those computer lab circumstances. Using e-mail for journals and other assignments also may be more efficient and cost-effective than using paper, for instructors as well as students, Von Holzen (1996) stated. "There is no need to deal with a stack of notebooks with the electronic journals" (p. 213).
In conclusion, little research has been conducted on CAI�s effect on journalistic writing, possibly because few software programs have been developed for journalism instruction. At the minimum, journalism education researchers could build upon the studies on CAI and English composition, seeking to support or reject their findings. At best, journalism researchers could extend the knowledge in their field by investigating how CAI affects the qualities that distinguish journalistic writing from other styles.