Possibilities of Interactive Computer Graphics for Art Instruction: A Summary of Research

National Art Education Association

Possibilities of Interactive Computer Graphics for Art Instruction: A Summary of ResearchAuthor(s): Kerry FreedmanSource: Art Education, Vol. 44, No. 3 (May, 1991), pp. 41-47Published by: National Art Education AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3193254 .

Accessed: 16/06/2014 13:52

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

National Art Education Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to ArtEducation.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.45 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 13:52:58 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=naea

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3193254?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Kerry Freedman

Possibilities of Interactive

Computer Graphics for Art Instruction:

A Summary of Research

Interactive graphics systems, such as paint software, are tool programs. They are developed for constructing imagery and producing certain visual effects. The use of systems to generate graphics has many things in common with making art with traditional media. However, the technical and conceptual peculiarities of interactive computer hardware and software should be considered when developing curriculum (Freedman, 1989; Freedman, & Relan, 1990; Roland, 1990).

The ways in which teachers and students use software is as important as the construction of the software itself. Although it is assumed that computers can theoreti- cally promote educational change, recent research has indicated that teachers often use software in ways similar to how they taught before they had a computer in their classroom (e.g. Hawkins, Sheingold, Gearhart, & Berger, 1982). Classroom activities do not always draw on the peculiar strengths of computer hardware and software.

For this and other reasons, research done on the use of computers in the context of art classrooms is very important. The following sections draw upon such research by the author and others that particularly concerns three issues pertain- ing to the use of interactive graphics hardware and software in school: (a) computer graphics production processes, (b) the social dynamics of computer graphics production in school, and (c) qualities of computer graphics imagery.'

'Turkle (1984) identified three stages of conceptual development as students learn to use computers. However, this paper does not focus upon develop- mental differences. It also does not focus upon socioeconomic differences, which are important to

The Production Process Examining the process of computer graphics production by students may provide new avenues for instruction. Students develop images on computers in ways both similar to and different from the ways they develop images with other art materials. For example, as with other media, when first using a computer and interactive graphics software, students often "scribble" or 'Iry out" in a manner that acquaints them with the possibilities of the new medium (Freedman, 1989).

However, when using computers, the trying out is also an integral part of the work done to fulfill assignments (Freed- man, 1989; Freedman & Relan, 1990). Many students find it more difficult to translate a pencil sketch from paper to computer to produce a final piece than to work directly on the computer. These students prefer to work on a computer more than to use other media because it is easier to make changes, or "correct mistakes," using the computer as a sketchpad. They may change aspects of their images (such as the color of the background) several times, saving each change so that they will be able to later choose the one for the teachers evaluation (Freedman, 1989; Freedman & Relan,1990).

This vital aspect of computer graphics production, that is, the possibility of keep- ing an image while at the same time changing it, has been called seriation (Freedman, 1989). Through the use of

consider in computer research; those are reported elsewhere. Rather, I will discuss some issues that are relatively common across grades and socioeconomic levels in my studies of students in elementary, secondary and higher education classrooms.

Art Education/May 1991 41



LA

S... f-.1?

S.. .. . . . . O..:

•--• ii~i- •~i~i !::• !4r

Computer image done on an Apple Ilgs, with DeLuxe Paint II software, by Richard Meaux. Photo by Anju Relin.

seriation, students experiment more on the computer than is common with other media (Freedman, 1989; Greh, 1986). They tend to take more chances when working at the computer. Although students I have interviewed have reported that the speed with which they can make images and the technical skills required to use a computer are important differences from the use of other media, the most important and often cited difference is this type of integrated exploration.

Students seem to use production "accidents" when using computers in different ways than with traditional media (Freedman, 1989). The accidents, or things that happen unexpectedly on the screen, can be produced through a combination of moves of the mouse or software functions that produce an image the student had not intended. When accidents produce a more interesting image than the one the student had in mind, they are often kept. In such cases, the computer may seem in control. However, the process of making computer graphics may also be seen as more

innovative and experimental than the use of more traditional media (Freedman, 1989; Greh, 1986). Some students also find computers easier to control than other media because they believe that the computer enhances their abilities to represent. In one study, students stated that computers do not direct the formal and conceptual aspects of imagery as much as other media because the technical and manipulative aspects of the medium, such as becoming familiar with available software functions or the moving a mouse), are fairly predictable and easy to control (Freedman & Relan, 1990).

Because paint systems are designed to simulate paint, students often expect to be able to use the software in ways similar to real paint (Freedman & Relan, 1990). During the time students think of software as being a poor simulation of paint, they may become frustrated that they cannot get the visual effects they expect. How- ever, as experience is gained on the computer, their attention shifts to using the strengths of the software rather than trying

42 Art EducationlMay 1991



to make the computer reproduce the strengths of other media (Freedman & Relan, 1990).

At this time, the students are able to make aesthetic decisions about imagery in process as they watch the image they have set in motion develop on the screen. In this way, they are able to attend to changes as they occur and consider which changes are beneficial. The students can elaborate and refine imagery, thus using a process important to learning aesthetic knowledge (Gaitskell, Hurwitz, & Day, 1982).

Social Dynamics: Gender, Student Critique and Cooperative Learning There are vital social and cultural aspects to the use of computers in any educational setting. Issues such as gender differences, collaboration and cooperative learning, attitudes about computers, and the prob- lems promoting "technological" forms of thought should be studied in terms of art instruction. Research has highlighted the importance of thinking about classrooms as reflecting larger social issues in general and issues concerning the use of technology in particular (e.g. Sheingold, Hawkins, & Char, 1984). For example, gender differences that are common in classroom settings are even more apparent when computers are involved (Hawkins, 1984).

Research has also indicated that boys are more interested in and have greater knowledge about computers than girls (Marshall & Bannon, 1986). In part, these differences may be explained as a result of the amount of experience students have had with computers (e.g. Loyd & Gressard, 1984). However, it is also the ways in which computers are used that influence differences between boys' and girls' attitudes about computers (Hawkins, 1984).

Both amount and type of computer experience tend to differ between boys and girls. In one study of elementary school classrooms, half as many fifth grade girls used computers at home as did boys (Freedman, 1989). When given a choice of activities to do with computers, the boys chose to design or play computer games. The girls preferred to use computers for a wider variety of purposes, such as writing a letter or making a birthday card. While

24.5% of the fifth grade boys reported that they had learned how to use computers on their own, only .5% of the girls said that they had learned how to use a computer without help. Two reasons for this difference emerged during interviews with the students: 1) the boys often initiated their own experiences with computers (at home or through their peers), and the girls rarely did; and 2) the girls generally got more attention from adults in learning how to use computers.

Gender differences were also illustrated by both the subject matter and structure of student work (Freedman, 1989). The differences were most apparent in the fifth grade. When the fifth grade girls worked at the computer in groups with other girls, they focused less on the computer and more upon interacting among themselves, including talking about topics other than the computer. The girls were less interested in movement on the screen, and changes in their images were often subtle. The girls seemed to be more concerned with the use of color and the relational arrangements of an image than were the boys. For example, the girls often dis- cussed the size of a shape in relation to other shapes and whether colors "went together."

The fifth grade boys focused more upon interacting with the computer than with each other and were less concerned with quality of design than with movement. For the boys, the ease of producing movement seemed to override concerns about more complex aesthetic decisions and producing a representational image.

It has been reported that boys and girls tend to collaborate more when making art on a computer than during other classroom activities (Freedman, 1989; Greh, 1986). In these ways, producing computer graphics becomes more of a social project than the production of art with traditional media; the use of computers promotes a collective artistry. Instead of being the product of individual self-expression, computer images are developed through the efforts of a group of people. One way this occurs is through the development of the software: software is developed by people who select what functions will be available, how they will work, and how they will look. Also,




through its application in social settings like school, graphics software prompts various forms of collaboration that add another dimension of group production.

At least four forms of collaboration have been observed when students make computer-assisted-art. One form of collaboration is consultation (Freedman, 1989). Students with more computer experience tutor other students, often without being asked to do so by a teacher. Beginning students do well in groups and grasp the technicalities of computer graphics when tutored by experienced students. This expedites learning the technicalities of using computers. The tutors are often students that have computers at home. Student consultation makes learning easier for the tutored students, and the tutors learn more as they teach.

The second type of collaboration is spontaneous direction (Freedman, 1989). Students often approach those working at the computer to give unsolicited advice on how to improve the image. The attention of students is attracted by certain visual characteristics of the computer screen (such as its uprightness and brightness) that are not at work with traditional media. Students have been observed at the computer commenting more on other students' work than when using traditional media (Freedman, 1989). When working on computers, students often feel more comfortable doing what others suggest than with traditional media, because they can go back to their original image if they do not like the result of the suggestion. This form of interactive student critique becomes part of the production process. Older students tend not to be as directive as elementary school students, and have a different sense of what is acceptable to say to the person at the computer, but there tends to be substantial student direction during production at grade levels from elementary through higher education.

The third form of collaboration involves cooperation and resistance (Freedman, 1989). In one study of fifth graders, each session of work began with a single student within a small group inputting information by using a mouse (Freedman, 1989). As might be expected, a research

assistant and I observed struggles between the students to control the mouse on several occasions, and we saw instances of cooperation as students passed the mouse back and forth between them. However, we also saw something unex- pected: often one or two students in the group put their hand on top of the person's hand who was controlling the input device, and they moved the mouse together.

The fourth type of collaboration involves image transferral, that is, the recycling of imagery or the transformation of one student's image by another or other students. Newly tutored students often use example images made by teachers and images made by other students as starting points for their work. Sometimes images are used without the knowledge or ap- proval of the student who first produced them. Students borrow other students' disks and add to their imagery; they work off of hard disks that contain other student work as well as images produced by teachers and people in the software industry. Further, images are scanned from other sources and it becomes questionable whether the scanned image belongs to the student who scanned it and whether anyone should have access to it.

The various forms of collaboration (consultation, spontaneous direction, cooperation and resistance, and imagery transferral) often occur in relation to each other, and collaboration sometimes results in conflict, for example, about who "owns" a computer image. However, it is important to note that the social interactions often influence student imagery and may be beneficial to students in other ways, such as through the understanding of the formal complexities of visual arrangement and social dimensions of aesthetic judgment. At the computer, artistic production becomes more of a social project (even when students are not told to work together) than working with traditional media which usually focuses upon individual self- expression. Production becomes integrated with critique, suggesting that there are ways to further integrate the general study of various art disciplines and prac- tices through the generation of computer graphics.

44 Art Education/May 1991



S•? \i

Serlation Sequence done on an Apple Ilgs, with Deluxe Paint II software, by Anne Klinter. Photo by Anju Relin.

Qualities of Computer Graphics Imagery The forms and qualities of computer graphics imagery are important consider- ations when teaching about aesthetics and criticism. Computer imagery is developed in relation to the qualities of computer functions, the process of learning about the capabilities of computers, and the age and experience of the students.

As with any art medium, peculiarities of the medium help to determine form; in the case of computers, the capabilities available through the software and the hardware direct imagery. The visual structure of the functions, such as those for air brush, geometric shapes, or pattern-making, the capacity for animation, and color capabilities influence imagery.

Paint systems are designed to simulate paint. The simulation means that certain culturally specific things are taken for granted, such as a white default screen, various types of "brushes," and special effects like certain types of "brushstrokes" and "airbrushing" techniques. However, the simulation makes only some things pos- sible, and the possibilities are not neces- sarily those of real paint. There are crucial differences in the process of production, as well as in the visual and tactile qualities, of computer graphics as compared to paint.

At times, computer images produced by students seem more stereotypical than those designed with traditional art media (Stokrocki, 1986). The use of stereotypical images by grade school students is common when using any medium, and it is exceptionally easy to produce such images when students use scanners to input comics, advertisements, story illustrations, and other popular pictures. However, a stereotypic quality can also be added to an image through the peculiarities of computer graphics functions (Freedman, 1989). For example, when elementary students make representational pictures, they sometimes rely on the functions for squares, circles, and other geometric shapes to make natural objects, producing a more stereotypical effect.

When using computers, students focus upon at least four art elements not often considered in art education: movement, light, chance or randomness, and audience




419, AC

xot-5

4F

jLi

Serlation Sequence done on an Apple ligs, with DeLuxe Paint II software, by Carol Harris. Photos by Anju Relin.

46 Art EducationlMay 1991



interaction. Although these elements have historical precedents in art, they are rarely focused upon in art education, in part, because they have been difficult and expensive to produce in school. These elements contribute to the particular aesthetic qualities of computer graphics and could newly be brought into art classrooms through computer-assisted art.

Conclusion This paper is to provide a framework for speculating on the production process, social dynamics, and the forms of computer-assisted school art. The research referenced suggests that technical and conceptual peculiarities of the technology in general, and certain hardware and software in particular, should be taken into account when developing curriculum. We must consider what particular art concepts could and should be taught using computers, how computers might best be used in teaching art concepts, and at what age the concepts should be taught. Interactive graphics can be used to promote a prob- lem-posing perspective to art education. The hardware and software affords students the opportunity to engage in new critique experiences and explore new expressive forms.

The research indicates that the quality of student interactions with computers, not just the technology itself, should be considered. As with other media, exploration is important for discovering the graphic capabilities of computers. However, unlike other art media, the computer promotes both stereotypic and more sophisticated aspects of imagery. Also, many students now gain computer experience outside school, which is not the case with most art media. The experience seems to provide confidence and skills helpful to doing computer-assisted art.

Educators must be cautioned against using computer technology in ways that promote a narrow view of knowledge or learning. As suggested by the use of computers in general, and by these studies in particular, the boundaries between previously assumed dichotomous perspec- tives of the world (such as the artistic vs the scientific) are less clearly defined when producing graphics. The use of technology and educational software that limit the boundaries of knowledge to a single

disciplinary tradition or a procedure-driven model of learning can be rejected for new uses of computers that broaden ap- proaches to education.

Perhaps one of the most important lessons of the research is that social attitudes direct not only the production process, but the forms of student imagery, and represent larger conditions of school- ing. The research points out that focusing on the work of individual students for evaluative purposes and reasons of "self" expression should be reconsidered. In the research, imagery development was influenced by critical interactions between students. Promoting this form of critique could facilitate a variety of sophisticated learning situations. The use of cooperative- learning and group production techniques, such as student consultation, spontaneous direction, cooperation and resistance, and image transferral, could enhance art instruction.

Kerry Freedman is on the faculty of the Art Education Program at the University of Minne- sota, Minneapolis.

References

Freedman, K. (1989). Microcomputers and the dynamics of image making and social life in three art classrooms. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 21(3), 290-298.

Freedman, K. & Relan, A. (1990). The use of applications software in school: Paint system image development processes as a model for situated learning. Journal of Research in Computing in Education, (23) (1), 101-113.

Gaitskell, C. D. Hurwitz, A. & Day, M. (1982). Children and their art: Methods for the elementary school (4th ed.). New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Greh, D. (1986). Using computers in secondary art education. Art Education, 39(6), 4-9.

Hawkins, J. (1984). Computers and girls: Rethinking the issues (Report No. 24). New York: Bank Street College, Center for Children and Technology.

Loyd, B. H., & Gressard, C. P. (1984). The effects of sex, age, and computer experience on computer attitudes. AEDS Journal, 18(2), 67-77.

Marshall, J. c. & Bannon, S. H. (1986). Computer attitudes and computer knowledge of students and educators. AEDS Journal, 19(4), 270-286.

Roland, C. (1990). Our love affair with new technology: Is the honeymoon over? Art Education, 43(3), 54-60.

Sheingold, K., Hawkins, J., & Char, C. (1984). "I'm the thinkist, you're the typist": The interaction of technology and the social life of classrooms. Journal of Social Issues, 40(3), 49-61.

Stokrocki, M. (1986). Qualiative interpretation of a microcomputer graphics course for gifted and talented adolescents. Art Education, 39(1), 44- 47.

Turkle, S. (1984). The second self: Computers and the human spirit New York: Simon & Schuster.




Documents

Possibilities of Interactive Computer Graphics for Art Instruction: A Summary of Research