The use of cartoons as a teaching and learning strategy

Allan Doring Australian Catholic University

Introduction

Today, with a much more diversified student population in higher education, we need to be constantly on the outlook for variety in our methods of teaching. If we are to fully engage students to be actively involved in their own learning, good teaching involves getting most students to use higher cognitive level processes (Biggs, 1999:8). To encourage this development, learning activities become important. As an example of one approach, this paper outlines the use of cartoons as stimuli to encourage thinking processes and discussion skills.

It is suggested that cartoons (a term used to include stand alone illustrations, captioned or non-captioned, and short comic strip formats) have a potentially valuable contribution to make. Visually the impact is immediate and all students, irrespective of age or background, are able to respond in some way to the educational point being made.

Humour and learning

The value of humour in the teaching/learning process is reasonably well recognised particularly in the establishment of a positive learning environment (Sever & Ungar, 1997) and the relationship between teacher and students (Pollack & Freda, 1999). As a teaching strategy, alleged benefits include the promotion of understanding, increased attention and interest, motivation towards learning, improved attitudes, productivity, creativity and divergent thinking (Parrott, 1994). Other benefits include decreased academic stress and anxiety, boredom and disruptive behaviour (Powell & Andresen, 1985). While the effects on learning are clearly of interest, it is suggested that the effects are probably more indirect, particularly in higher education where learning is often seen as a serious, stressful business.

There is little doubt that humour, both in pictorial and verbal forms, is useful as a device for gaining and maintaining attention and interest. Ziv (1979) reported results which indicated that if the introduction of a concept is followed by a humorous example, and then an explanation of the concept, test performance is improved. In accepting this argument, it is suggested that humour serves to illustrate, reinforce and make more comprehensible the material being taught (Powell & Andresen, 1985).

The use of humour, or perhaps its overuse, in teaching has an element of risk and teachers need to be mindful of the possible unintended consequences, particularly of verbal humour. By its very nature, humour may seem antithetical to the seriousness and even solemnity that usually characterises teaching (Powell & Andresen, 1985). Experience of verbal humour suggests that delivery is a real skill, not all students will be attentive and understand while there is the risk of offending through misunderstanding with any joke being perceived as a source of ridicule, sarcasm or as being racist or sexist.

It is for these reasons that cartoons offer a better alternative. Described as a humourous drawing, cartoons are most prevalent in newspapers as a means of political or social comment as best understood by the artist (Ziegler, 1998). Short comic strips, while often simply for fun, are another source of insight into the contemporary world. Without doubt, all students will have experienced the type of humour exhibited in this form of communication. It is through the careful selection and use of appropriate and relevant cartoons that an element of humour can be introduced, where appropriate, without detracting from the intention of the teaching situation (Lochrie, 1992).

There are other benefits. Modern educational theory highlights the importance of interactivity, involvement of the audience who should be stimulated to think and to learn and whose reactions should affect the conduct of the teaching (Ramsden, 1992; Biggs, 1999). When a teacher uses humour and is able to stimulate the students to laugh or smile then at least to that extent the teacher knows that the students have been engaged with their response providing one form of feedback to the teacher (Ziegler, 1998).

Using cartoons

Previous experience (Doring, 1998) demonstrated that often it is difficult to encourage students, particularly first years experiencing the transition to higher education, to openly think and discuss new concepts especially in large classes. While their benefits have been demonstrated in nurse education (Pease, 1991) and language teaching (Mollica, 1976), in the foundation sociology units taught by the writer, the use of cartoons has been found to offer an effective means to develop particular skills. Their effectiveness in part arises from the nature of the discipline. So much humour is embedded in stereotypes, a concept central to sociology (Pasquali, 1980). Sociologically, cartoons are a powerful means of providing social and political comment (Ziegler, 1998) because so often they are unmasking - they reveal the contrast between perception and reality (Witkin, 1999).

Cartoons, by their very nature, usually exaggerate a particular facet that can help focus on a suitable teaching/learning point. As a neutral resource, students are able to respond, joke about possible interpretations, and react to the exaggerations alone, in pairs, small groups and eventually in large lecture classes. In interacting with the cartoon stimuli, they are refining their own learning and understanding while at the same time be encouraged to develop critical higher order cognitive skills.

Illustrations

A good collection of suitable cartoons is necessary and this can be built up over time. Once students are aware of the approach, they often assist by locating pertinent examples or in several cases, skilled students have drawn their own examples to illustrate a point. Alternatively one can be creative and use available software packages to create individual examples. Prior photocopying allows for editing including the removal of captions or adding and removing particular elements. Once prepared, cartoons can be displayeded either by overhead projector or computer presentation program.

A fundamental learning objective within the writer's sociology classes is the willingness to try to objectively analyse everyday social behaviour. The following cartoon serves as a means of introduction:

An obviously well dressed mother looks askance at the extremely grubby friend her young son has brought home to play with and asks the question: "And exactly what does your father do?"

Students are able to identify with similar questions asked during introductions and meeting new people. Terms such as "snobs", "sticky-beaks" and "nosey" emerge from their initial comments. Focusing the discussion on the underlying purpose of such social questions, helps to introduce the notion of social differentiation or the process of grouping people according to common characteristics perceived or believed to be shared (Haralambos, et.al. 1996:28). Appreciating this process is fundamental to an understanding of socio-economic groupings or the common notion of social class. A comic strip helps to then demonstrate the general readiness of individuals to engage in this process:

A school reunion organiser asks his assistant to prepare signs to divide the former students into classes. The assistant does so but the titles on each banner are unanticipated: Filthy rich, comfortable and flat broke.

Both cartoons can be used as examples to illustrate the point or as an open discussion starter. Either way, students are willing to enjoy the sense of fun and contribute.

The possible teaching variations are unlimited. All or some of the captions in either of the two cartoons mentioned above can be deleted and students asked to suggest a caption or even what the creator is trying to convey through the sketch alone. In the spirit of the exercise, humorous examples can provide valuable teaching points, for example, different beliefs and understandings, the openness of different interpretations and acceptance of alternative views. Other possibilities arise where uncaptioned cartoons allow for creative analysis and/or after contributions, checking with the original caption.

If a suitable example to assist teaching a particular point cannot be located, with a little effort, alternatives are possible with a little effort. The Internet provides one source of cartoons (for example, www.swamp.com.au) while commercially available graphic packages allows one to select an illustration and add an individual caption. Again, the illustration can be provided and students asked to add a caption to highlight a particular aspect of a lecture or topic.

Conclusion

From the limited examples provided, the contribution of cartoon usage to the learning process has been illustrated. Feedback from students on their use as a teaching strategy has been consistently favourable. In being encouraged to be humorous in their approach to concepts and situations, students frequently produce answers that are usually much more interesting and provocative. Discussion is certainly richer and students appear more confident, candid and less judgemental and more accepting of other views. Evidence of the interest emerges from several students' willingness to provide appropriate examples some time after a particular topic has been dealt with.

Like any teaching strategy, the use of cartoons can become meaningless if over-used. Just as with humour, there needs to be a careful balance. While not attempting to suggest a limit, the writer has found that more than two or three per hourly teaching session often hinders moving students to higher cognitive tasks. Cartoons are an excellent starter and as a means to an end but like any use of humour in teaching, is a resource, not the product.

For copyright reasons, examples of cartoons could not be included.

References

Biggs, J. (1999) Teaching for quality learning at university. SRHE & OU Press.

Doring, A. (1998) Helping the move to university: Learning journals. Interlogue. 9(1) 63-70.

Haralambos, M., van Krieken, R., Smith, P. & Holborn, M. (1996) Sociology: Themes and perspectives: Australian edition. South Melbourne: Addison Wesley Longman.

Lochrie, K. (1992) Using cartoons as an effective learning and teaching strategy. SCRE Newsletter. 51 Autumn. 8-9

Mollica, A. (1976) Cartoons in the language classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review. 32(4) 424-444.

Parrott, T. (1994) Humour as a teaching strategy. Nurse Educator. 19(3) 36-38.

Pasquali, E.A. (1980) Comic strips in the classroom. In Mirin, S.K. (ed) Teaching Tomorrows' Nurse: A Nurse Educator Reader. Wakefield, Mass: Nursing Resources.

Pease, R.A. (1991) Cartoon humour in nursing education. Nursing Outlook 39(6) 262-267.

Pollak, J. & Freda, P. (1997) Humor, learning and socialization in middle level classrooms. Clearing House 70(4) 176-178.

Powell, J. & Andresen, L. (1985) Humour and teaching in higher education. Studies in Higher Education. 10(1) 79-90.

Ramsden, P. (1992) Learning to teach in higher education. New York: Routledge.

Sever, A. & Ungar, S. (1997) No laughing matter: Boundaries of gender-based humour in the classroom. Journal of Higher Education. 68(1) 87-105.

Witkin, S. (1999) Taking humour seriously. Social Work. 44(2) 101-104.

Ziegler, J. (1998) Use of humour in medical teaching. Medical Teacher. 20(4) 341-348.

Ziv, A. (1979) The teacher's sense of humour and the atmosphere in the classroom. School Psychology International. 1(2) 21-23. 5