Q&A with Jack Dvorak, Journalism Kids Do Better researcher

By Megan Chance
J-Ideas

Indiana University Professor Jack Dvorak gives his thoughts on his updated "Journalism Kids Do Better" study.

Q. As a journalism educator why do you believe the "Journalism Kids Do Better" study is important? And why was it important to update the study?

A. For practical reasons, the J-Kids Do Better research has helped educators and administrators in several states justify having journalism taught in the schools. It (Journalism) has often been treated as a second-class citizen within the language arts department, and having data that suggests that journalism can be a key course in the teaching of writing--and other language skills--provides the type of justification that is needed.

It's important that we updated the data. For one thing, the replication of the 20+ year old study validates what we first discovered--that journalism kids do better in many areas of both academics and leadership. The original data was taken from ACT tests that were administered in the early to mid-1980s. The 2008 data provides contemporary outcomes.

Q. Does journalism really make students do better, or does journalism just attract better students?

A. Probably both. The latest ACT study does not show causation, but it does show strong relationships between success in academics and the taking of journalism--or the serving on the staff of a newspaper or yearbook while in high school. Combined with studies that have shown causation--and I've been involved with two of the four that I've found--it's safe to say that journalism does make an academic and social difference for many students in positive ways.

Q. Does journalism's increasing involvement in technology attract different kinds of students?

A. The latest study doesn't deal with technology, so I can't speak in any systematic way on this question. However, I would surmise that most all students are involved in new technology, so it would be difficult to separate the tech aspects from the kinds of students involved. The fundamentals of journalism are the same, no matter what the technology. I would guess that the same types of students who were attracted to school publications 50 and 60 years ago are the same types of students who are attracted to it today.

Q. Why is scholastic journalism important?

A. School media are of, by and for students. The communications aspects of peer-to-peer communication cannot be overlooked. These are powerful interchanges among students, and they are accomplished like no other form of communication. In that respect, school news media are unique in what they can deliver and what they can provide.

Furthermore, we know that there are positive and strong correlations between serving on the school publications staff and academic performance -- in high school grades, in ACT tests, in AP English Language and Composition Exams, and in collegiate grades. Also, standardized tests taken two years into college course work show that journalism students with high school publications experience outperform non-journalism students.

Q. How can this study be used to support scholastic journalism?

A. The results show positive relationships with academic performance. School districts and state department of education officials should take note of journalism's worth before making decisions to do away with it.

Q. What do you see as the key differences between the 1987 and 2008 studies?

A. Results are much the same, which is gratifying to researchers doing the study as well as to journalism educators. In 1987 we had more writing samples done on the collegiate level than we did in 1987, but in the new analyses we have writing samples from sophomore year in college as well as other outcomes based on the Collegiate Assessment of Academic Progress (CAAP). In 2008, we also had results of high school foreign language and art classes that we did not have in the 2008 study.

Q. Why have some results in the study remained consistent over the 21 years?

A. The results show that the original findings are valid and reliable. Those are the benefits of repeated-measures testing. I'm hoping someone will replicate the study in another 20 years. Based on what I've seen, I'll bet results will be similar then.

Q. What feelings did you have as you analyzed the results?

A. I was very pleased with the outcome. Frankly, I wasn't totally surprised with the 2008 findings. However, back in the mid-1980s during the original tests we were highly pleased with the results because this type of testing and comparison had not been done before. We entered the study hoping we would find positive relationships and were elated when our hopes became reality. Based on the earlier results plus other studies that have been done by other researchers, we were not totally surprised by the 2008 findings. However, we were very pleased with the results.

Q. How will scholastic journalism change, based on the results of this study?

A. Who knows? We're hoping that change might come in the form of schools and school districts and state agencies allowing journalism to remain a solid academic component within the curriculum. That has happened to some extent with the earlier (1987) study. We hope it happens even more so with the 2008 study.