ONLINE HAND GRAPHICS EDUCATION IN DESIGN FIELDS: CAN WORKING BY HAND WORK ONLINE?

This presentation describes the evaluation of an online basic hand graphics course at an accredited landscape architecture program in the United States. As the first online graphics course in an accredited landscape architecture program, it was critical to conduct a robust evaluation of the effectiveness of the course in supporting learning goals, and assessing the impact on student performance.

The evaluation used a comparative method, wherein a random sample of students enrolled in the graphics course were placed in a traditional face-to-face classroom, while the remaining students utilized the online curriculum. Student submission ns were graded by three outside graders who evaluated each submission for its graphical quality. These submissions included black and white as well as color graphics. Students were evaluated on the production of schematic, plan view, sectional, and perspective graphics. The scores provided by the outside graders were then compared using a repeated measures ANOVA to determine if any statistical difference existed between student performance in the face-to-face and online course. Additional data was gathered through interviews with students in order to better understand their experience while taking the course.

The results of this study found that the graphical quality of work submitted by face-to-face students was significantly better than online students. This finding was consistent across nearly all the projects, and was also reflected in the final course grades. It is hypothesized that these results can partially be explained through the lack of three social dynamics inadequately present in the online course. These three are a lack of immediacy of feedback, an inability to easily see the work of peers, and difficulty creating a learning community similar to that which exists within the studio space. Despite these shortcomings, students reported several benefits to the online course, including the ability to review course material from previous lectures, richer communication with the professor outside of scheduled class hours, and the flexibility of the course.

The findings of this research support the critical nature of the social component of learning as posited by theorists such as Lave & Wenger (1991), Hutchins (1995), and Gee (2004). While the online course used proven media and educational theory, it appears that the social component of learning was not adequately scaffolded. Future research will focus on how these social pitfalls might be mitigated and subsequent interventions evaluated to determine if improvement in student performance has been achieved.

References:
[1] Gee, J. (2004). Situated language and learning: A critique of traditional schooling. New York, NY: Routledge.
[2] Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
[3] Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning and legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.