, Volume 63, Issue 1, pp 23–32 | Cite as

The Effects of Collaborative Video Production on Situational Interest of Elementary School Students

  • Joseph P. GastonEmail author
  • Byron Havard
Original Paper


The purpose of this study was to determine how Collaborative Video Production (CVP) influences students’ perceived learning, content interest, and school interest. The theoretical framework is based on the Four Phase Interest Model developed by Renninger and Hidi (2016). The sample consisted of 242 students and 13 teachers representing grades 2 through 5. Results of this convergent parallel mixed methods study (Creswell and Plano Clark 2011) suggest CVP had a positive influence on perceived learning, content interest, and school interest for second grade through fifth grade students. The presence of Phase 1: triggered situational interest, and Phase 2: maintained situational interest as described by Renninger and Hidi (2016) were evident in the results. Students and teachers also described CVP as having a positive influence on the learning environment.


Collaborative video production Engagement Situational interest 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

All procedures performed in this study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Mobile County Public School System Institutional Review Board and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Permission to conduct this study was granted by the principal of the school where the study was conducted. Informed consent was obtained from all study participants including teacher and parental consent and child assent.

Conflict of Interest

Joseph P. Gaston declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Byron Havard declares that he has no conflict of interest.


  1. Barron, B., Gomez, K., Pinkard, N., & Martin, C. (2014). The digitalyouth network: Cultivating digital media citizenship in urban communities. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bazeli, M. J., & Heintz, J. L. (1997). Technology across the curriculum: Activities and ideas. Englewood: Libraries Unlimited, Inc.Google Scholar
  3. Beltramo, D. A. (2008). Digital video production: A case study on motivating at-risk middle school math students (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Information and Learning Company. (UMI Number: 3297173).Google Scholar
  4. Clark, R. E., & Sugrue, B. M. (1991). Research on instructional media, 1978–1988. In G. J. Anglin (Ed.), Instructional technology: Past, present, and future (pp. 327–343). Englewood: Libraries Unlimited.Google Scholar
  5. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  6. Deci, E. L. (1992). The relation of interest to the motivation of behavior: A self-determination theory perspective. In K. A. Renninger, S. Hidi, & A. Krapp (Eds.), The role of interest in learning and development (pp. 43–70). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  7. Dewey, J. (1913). Interest and efforts in education. Cambridge: Houghton Mifflin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Edelson, D. C., & Josephs, D. M. (2004). The interest driven learning design framework: motivating learning through usefulness. ICLS 2004: Embracing diversity in the learning sciences: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on learning sciences: 166–173.Google Scholar
  9. Gaston, J., & Havard, B. (2017). Collaborative video production in elementary school grades 2 through 5. Paper presented at the 2017 Association for Educational Communications and Technology annual meeting, Jacksonville, FL.Google Scholar
  10. Gaston, J., & Havard, B. (2018). The effects of collaborative video production on situational interest of elementary students. Paper presented at the 2018 International Society for Technology in Education annual conference, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  11. Henderson, M., Auld, G., Holkner, B., Russell, G., Seah, W. T., Fernando, A., & Romeo, G. (2010). Students creating digital video in the primary classroom: Student autonomy, learning outcomes, and professional learning communities. Australian Educational Computing, 24(2), 12–20.Google Scholar
  12. Hobbs, R., Donnelly, K., Friesem, J., & Moen, M. (2013). Learning to engage: How positive attitudes about the news, media literacy, and video production contribute to adolescent civic engagement. Educational Media International, 50(4), 231–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Illeris, K. (2007). How we learn. London and New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jonassen, D. H., Howland, J., Moore, J., & Rose, M. M. (2003). Learning to solve problem with technology: A constructivist perspective (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River: Merrill Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  15. Kang, H., Scharmann, L. C., Kang, S., & Noh, T. (2010). Cognitive conflict and situational interest as factors influencing conceptual change. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 5(4), 383–405.Google Scholar
  16. Kearney, M., & Schuck, S. (2005). Students in the director’s seat: Teaching and learning with student-generated video. In P. Kommers & G. Richards (Eds.), Proceedings of world conference on educational multimedia, hypermedia and telecommunications 2005 (pp. 2864–2871). Chesapeake: Association for the Advancement of Computers in Education.Google Scholar
  17. Linnenbrink-Garcia, L., Patall, E. A., & Messersmith, E. E. (2013). Antecedents and consequences of situational interest. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(4), 591–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mitchell, M. (1993). Situational interest: Its multifaceted structure in the secondary school mathematics classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(3), 424–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ochsner, K. (2010). Lights, camera, action research: The effects of didactic digital movie making on students’ twenty-first century learning skills and science content in the middle school classroom (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Information and Learning Company. (UMI Number: 3407089).Google Scholar
  20. Patton, M. Q. (2014). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  21. Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (1996). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  22. Ranker, J. (2007). A new perspective on inquiry: A case study of digital video production. English Journal, 97(1), 77–82. Scholar
  23. Renninger, K. A. (1992). Individual interest and development: Implications for theory and practice. In K. A. Renninger, S. Hidi, & A. Krapp (Eds.), The role of interest in learning and development (pp. 361–395). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  24. Renninger, K. A. (2000). Individual interest and its implications for understanding intrinsic motivation. In C. Sansone & J. M. Harackiewicz (Eds.), Intrinsic motivation: Controversies and new directions (pp. 373–404). San Diego: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Renninger, K. A., & Hidi, S. E. (2002). Student interest and achievement: Developmental issues raised by a case study. In A. Wigfield & J. S. Eccles (Eds.), Development of achievement motivation (pp. 173–195). New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Renninger, K. A., & Hidi, S. E. (2016). The power of interest for motivation and engagement. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Ross, D. L., Yerrick, R., & Molebash, P. (2003). Lights! Camera! Science?: Using digital video in the elementary science classrooms. Learning & Leading with Technology, 31(3), 18–21.Google Scholar
  28. Rotgans, J. I., & Schmidt, H. G. (2011). Situational interest and academic achievement in the active-learning classroom. Learning and Instruction, 21(1), 58–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rotgans, J. I., & Schmidt, H. G. (2017). Interest development: Arousing situational interest affects the growth trajectory of individual interest. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 49, 175–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schiefele, U. (1991). Interest, learning, and motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26(3–4), 299–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schlechty, P. C. (2011). Engaging students: The next level of working on the work. San Francisco: Wiley.Google Scholar
  32. Spires, H. A., Hervey, L. G., Morris, G., & Stelpflug, C. (2012). Energizing project-based inquiry: Middle-grade students read, write, and create videos. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 55(6), 483–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Stanwood, W. E. (2002). Evaluating subject matter learning in producing television programs (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Information and Learning Company. (UMI Number: 3043326).Google Scholar
  34. Tapola, A., Veermans, M., & Niemivirta, M. (2013). Predictors and outcomes of situational interest during a science learning task. Instructional Science: An International Journal of the Learning Sciences, 41(6), 1047–1064.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tobias, S. (1994). Interest, prior knowledge, and learning. Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 37–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Urbano, L. D., & Urbano, L. C. (2008). Learning through movie production with the movie classroom. Journal of Geoscience Education, 56(4), 334–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Yerrick, R., Ross, D., & Molebash, P. (2003). Promoting equity with digital video. Learning & Leading with Technology, 31(4), 16–19.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications & Technology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Counseling and Instructional SciencesUniversity of South AlabamaMobileUSA
  2. 2.College of EducationMobileUSA
  3. 3.Instructional Design and TechnologyUniversity of West FloridaPensacolaUSA
  4. 4.College of Education and Professional Studies 85/118PensacolaUSA

Personalised recommendations