Advertisement

TechTrends

pp 1–13 | Cite as

The Motivational Effects of Involving Students in Rubric Development on Animation Instruction

  • Hua ZhengEmail author
  • Lu Ding
  • Zhenqiu Lu
  • Robert Maribe Branch
Original Paper
  • 28 Downloads

Abstract

This exploratory study examined the motivational effects of an instructional method that involved students in the rubric development on animation instruction. Drawing upon Keller’s ARCS motivation model, this study compared student motivation regarding attention (A), relevance (R), confidence (C), and satisfaction (S) towards animation instruction before and after their involvement in the rubric development. This study recruited seventeen undergraduates participating in a technology integration course and administered motivation surveys before and after implementing the instructional method. The survey results revealed that student motivation was significantly increased in terms of relevance. Motivated students developed a self-developed rubric by drawing upon their experience and perspectives of creating animated research presentation videos. Another motivational effect was identified in students’ improved performance in creating animated videos to present research. (125).

Keywords

Rubric development Student involvement Motivational effects Animation instruction 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Hyewon Lee for helping grade animated videos.

Compliance on Ethical Standards

The Institutional Review Board approved this study. This study obtained informed consent from all individual participants included in the study. All participants were not disadvantaged, and the collected data were anonymized.

References

  1. Andrade, H. L., & Du, Y. (2005). Student perspectives on rubric-referenced assessment. Educational & Counseling Psychology Faculty Scholarship, 10(3), 1–11.Google Scholar
  2. Andrade, H. L., Du, Y., & Wang, X. (2008). Putting rubrics to the test: The effect of a model, criteria generation, and rubric-referenced self-assessment on elementary school students' writing. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 27(2), 3–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bolton, F. C. (2006). Rubrics and adult learners: Andragogy and assessment. Assessment Update, 18(3), 5–6.Google Scholar
  4. Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brookhart, S. M., & Durkin, D. T. (2003). Classroom assessment, student motivation, and achievement in high school social studies classes. Applied Measurement in Education, 16(1), 27–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown, G. T., Glasswell, K., & Harland, D. (2004). Accuracy in the scoring of writing: Studies of reliability and validity using a New Zealand writing assessment system. Assessing Writing, 9(2), 105–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Changeiywo, J. M., Wambugu, P. W., & Wachanga, S. W. (2011). Investigations of students' motivation towards learning secondary school physics through mastery learning approach. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9(6), 1333–1350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chappuis, S., & Stiggins, R. J. (2002). Classroom assessment for learning. Educational Leadership, 60(1), 40–44.Google Scholar
  9. Field, A. (2009). Discussing statistics using SPSS. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  10. Greenberg, K. P. (2015). Rubric use in formative assessment: A detailed behavioral rubric helps students improve their scientific writing skills. Teaching of Psychology, 42(3), 211–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hancock, D. (2004). Cooperative learning and peer orientation effects on motivation and achievement. The Journal of Educational Research, 97(3), 159–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hoban, G., Loughran, J., & Nielsen, W. (2011). Slowmation: Preservice elementary teachers representing science knowledge through creating multimodal digital animations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(9), 985–1009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jablonski, D., Hoban, G. F., Ransom, H. S., & Ward, K. S. (2015). Exploring the use of slowmation as a pedagogical alternative in science teaching and learning. Pacific-Asian education journal, 27(1), 5–20.Google Scholar
  15. Jacobs, B., & Clark, J. C. (2018). Create to critique: animation creation as conceptual consolidation. Teaching Science, 64(1), 26–36.Google Scholar
  16. Kapucu, M. S., Eren, E., & Avcı, Z. Y. (2014). Investigation of pre-service science teachers’ opinions about using GoAnimate to create animated videos. Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry, 5(4), 23–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Keller, J. M. (1987). Development and use of the ARCS model of instructional design. Journal of Instructional Development, 10(3), 2–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mogen, K. S. (2013). Mastery learning instruction versus traditional instructional methods in eight grade language arts. Retrieved from https://library.ndsu.edu/ir/bitstream/handl/10365/27043/Mastery%20Learning%20Instruction%20Versus%20Traditional%20Instctional%20Methods%20in%20Eighth%20Grade%20Language%20Arts.pdf?sequence=.
  19. NEA Education Policy and Practice Department. (2008). Universal design for learning (UDL): Making learning accessible and engaging for all students. https://www.nea.org/assets/docs/PB23_UDL08.pdf. Accessed 18 Sept 2018.
  20. Nielsen, W., Hoban, G., & Hyland, C. J. (2017). Pharmacology students’ perceptions of creating multimodal digital explanations. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 18(2), 329–339.  https://doi.org/10.1039/C6RP00244G.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ozdemir, M., Izmirli, S., & Sahin-Izmirli, O. (2016). The effects of captioning videos on academic achievement and motivation: Reconsideration of redundancy principle in instructional videos. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 19(4), 1–10.Google Scholar
  22. Popham, W. J. (1997). What's wrong-and what's right-with rubrics. Educational Leadership, 55, 72–75.Google Scholar
  23. Rivoltella, P. C. (2012). Beyond digital natives: European research on media education; challenges of technology and pedagogical issues. Educational Technology, 52(2), 25–29.Google Scholar
  24. Schneider, F. J. (2006). Rubrics for teacher education in community college. The Community College Enterprise, 12(1), 39.Google Scholar
  25. Skillings, M. J., & Ferrell, R. (2000). Student-generated rubrics: Bringing students into the assessment process. The Reading Teacher, 53(6), 452–455.Google Scholar
  26. Stiggins, R. (1997). Student-centered classroom assessment. Columbus, OH: Merrill Publishing.Google Scholar
  27. Stratton, M. T., Julien, M., & Schaffer, B. (2014). GoAnimate. Journal of Management Education, 38(2), 282–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Vyond (2017). The new GoAnimate video maker (Now the Vyond studio). Retrieved from https://www.vyond.com/blog/new-goanimate-video-make.
  29. Zheng, H., Branch, R. M., & Lee, H. (2019). Creating animated videos as an innovative instructional alternative to writing essays for presenting research. TechTrends, 63(3).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-019-00400-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications & Technology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.McMurry UniversityAbileneUSA

Personalised recommendations