This article was downloaded by: [University of Boras]On: 07 October 2014, At: 06:43Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Computers in the Schools:Interdisciplinary Journal of Practice,Theory, and Applied ResearchPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wcis20
Student-Created Digital Media andEngagement in Middle School HistoryCurby Alexandera
a Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, Texas, USAPublished online: 20 Aug 2014.
To cite this article: Curby Alexander (2014) Student-Created Digital Media and Engagement in MiddleSchool History, Computers in the Schools: Interdisciplinary Journal of Practice, Theory, and AppliedResearch, 31:3, 154-172, DOI: 10.1080/07380569.2014.932652
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2014.932652
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Computers in the Schools, 31:154–172, 2014Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 0738-0569 print / 1528-7033 onlineDOI: 10.1080/07380569.2014.932652
Student-Created Digital Media and Engagementin Middle School History
CURBY ALEXANDERTexas Christian University, Fort Worth, Texas, USA
In this study, student engagement during classroom activities wasinvestigated where sixth graders created digital media projectsusing historical images. The study employed a qualitative de-sign involving observations, student artifacts, and interviews whilestudents were creating digital storyboards using a Web-based ap-plication developed for this research. Several patterns of studentengagement were identified, such as time on task, level of detail,and extra effort, which subsequently led to the development of fourdistinct profiles among the students. Applications of these findingsand directions for future studies are discussed.
KEYWORDS social studies, digital media, student engagement
Student disengagement is an immediate and persistent issue affecting bothteachers and students (Newmann, Wehlage, & Lamborn, 1992). Students whoare not personally invested in their learning are at greater risk to drop out ofschool (Bridgeland, DiIulio, & Morison, 2006). Lack of student engagement isalso associated with teacher burnout and contributes to the national problemof teacher attrition (Hastings & Bham, 2003).
Efforts at increasing student engagement have traditionally beentargeted at teacher effort and student incentives (Newmann et al., 1992).However, contemporary approaches to increasing student engagement havefocused more on learning environments (Brush & Saye, 2005; Ioannou,Brown, Hannafin, & Boyer, 2009) and the academic tasks that studentsperform (Heafner, 2004; Schlechty, 2002; Tomlinson, 2001). Newmann andWehlage (1993) identified the following characteristics of engaging learning
Address correspondence to Curby Alexander, PhD, College of Education, Texas ChristianUniversity, Palko Building #345, 2800 S. University Drive, Fort Worth, TX 76129, USA. E-mail:[email protected]
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online atwww.tandfonline.com/wcis.
154
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f B
oras
] at
06:
43 0
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
Digital Media and Student Engagement 155
environments and academic tasks: the level to which they are perceived asauthentic by students, the extent to which they are personally or situationallyinteresting (Murphy & Alexander, 2000; Renninger, 1992, 2000), the degreeof student choice, and the appropriate level of challenge and rigor.
Technology-enhanced student projects potentially address many of thecriteria for engaging learning environments or work. Although technologycannot solve all challenges associated with student disengagement, it doeshave a proven track record for capturing students’ attention (Lenhart &Madden, 2005). An in-depth study by the Pew Internet and American LifeProject (Arafeh, Levin, Rainie, & Lenhart, 2002) found that teens regu-larly use technology autonomously for both school-related and personallearning.
However, teachers have customarily been resistant to disrupting theirteaching environments and practices with technology (Cuban, 2001; Oppen-heimer, 2003). This is particularly true in history classes, where technologyhas not traditionally been part of the curriculum (Martorella, 1997). Tech-nology presents challenges to classroom management and typically requiresextra planning (Hofer & Swan, 2006). Furthermore, teachers must adhere tostrict curricular pacing and ensure they cover required content before end-of-year testing (van Hover & Pierce, 2006), either eliminating the introductionof technology-based projects or delaying them until the end of the year.
As a way to address some of the challenges associated with implement-ing technology-enhanced projects, PrimaryAccess Storyboard—a Web-basedstoryboarding tool, or game—was created for use in the history classroom(see Figure 1). Using primary source images as a background, students re-search the context of the images, then layer speech bubbles and animatedcharacters on the background to create an historical visual narrative. Eachstoryboard can have multiple frames, and projects can be shared using aunique URL. Implementation of this tool requires less time than would berequired to create other forms of digital media, such as movies or pod-casts; yet, the storyboarding software still includes features that students findinteresting and fun.
The purpose of this study was to investigate student engagement duringclassroom activities using PrimaryAccess Storyboard.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
The design of this tool was guided by the technological pedagogical contentknowledge framework (TPACK). Adapted from Pedagogical Content Knowl-edge (Shulman, 1987), Mishra and Koehler (2006) developed the TPACKframework to describe the interplay between a teacher’s content, pedagog-ical, and technological knowledge when planning instruction. Teachers donot develop their knowledge in each of these areas independently; rather,
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f B
oras
] at
06:
43 0
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
156 C. Alexander
FIGURE 1 PrimaryAccess Storyboard. A screen capture of PrimaryAccess Storyboard(www.primaryaccess.org), a Web-based tool designed for students to create narratives us-ing primary source images, text, and characters.
these areas of knowledge intersect and work together as teachers visualizeand develop instructional activities.
Shulman & Grossman (1988) believed teachers organized their content-area knowledge within a field of study differently from other professionalsin that same field of study, in that teachers categorized their knowledge interms of transferring it to others. Pedagogical content knowledge representsthe blending of content and pedagogy into an understanding of how par-ticular aspects of subject matter are organized, adapted, and represented forinstruction (Mishra & Koehler, 2006).
Building on this framework, TPACK operates from the belief that inorder for teachers to effectively teach with technology, they must continu-ally foster growth in all three knowledge domains: content, pedagogy, andtechnology. Teachers rarely use technology in their instruction for its ownsake. Rather, technology is used within the context of instruction for thepurpose of communicating concepts and skills to students, or allowing thestudents to build and convey their own knowledge back to others. Tech-nology, by nature, always fulfills a purpose for those who choose to adoptit (Rogers, 2003). Teachers have a different purpose for using technologyfrom professionals in other fields. Therefore, they organize their knowledge
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f B
oras
] at
06:
43 0
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
Digital Media and Student Engagement 157
of technology differently from those in other technology-using professions,such as programmers or network specialists, because they consider how itspresence will enhance, augment, or possibly hinder important aspects ofthe learning environment, such as representation, collaboration, classroommanagement, and creativity.
Current TPACK research focuses on the affordances of specific tech-nologies for enhancing both teaching and learning within the content areas(Thompson, 2007). Technology, from this perspective, is viewed more asa set of tools in a toolbox, and their “goodness” is relative to the teachingstrategies and cognitive processes they support (Salomon, 1993).
Ferdig (2006) emphasized the importance of the design process whendeveloping educational technology that supports both content and peda-gogy. He proposed the following essential understandings teachers and in-novators must have in order to develop effective educational technologies.First, teachers and innovators must understand that educational technologydesign is a bidirectional process, where each discipline informs the other. Ateacher’s way of teaching should not totally dictate the design process, andthe innovator’s design sensibilities should not dictate the teacher’s practice.Second, teachers and innovators must interact and understand one another’spredispositions in terms of using technology and creating a learning environ-ment where new tools are openly received. Finally, innovators and teachersmust understand the flexible and improvisational nature of both teaching andtechnology, and that effective integration of technology into the learning pro-cess may require innovations to be based on interchangeable componentsrather than rigid, systematic programs (Ferdig, 2006).
PrimaryAccess Storyboard was developed based on the design criteriaidentified by Ferdig (2006) in order to create a tool that could keep studentsengaged in learning activities that involve inquiry using historical images. Stu-dent engagement with PrimaryAccess Storyboard and its associated learningactivities had unique implications for each dimension of the TPACK frame-work: engagement with the content, engagement with the learning activity,and engagement with the technology.
Engagement with the content is the extent to which students are mo-tivated to learn the subjects being addressed in the classroom. Frick (1992)analyzed the notion of “interestedness” versus “interestingness,” noting thatthe former applies to a feeling of interest in a topic prior to learning theoutcome of an event, while the latter is a feeling of interest occurring afterthe outcome of an event and pertaining only to the specific outcome. Forexample, some students have a personal interest in history, and that interestmotivates them to engage themselves in the subject (Schiefele, 1991). Thestudents’ inclination toward history will likely result in increased achievementin their history classes (Eccles, Wigfield & Schiefele, 1998).
Engagement with the learning activity is the extent to which the studentsare psychologically invested in the specific lesson the teacher has preparedfor the class. Using the prior example, students who are not inherently
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f B
oras
] at
06:
43 0
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
158 C. Alexander
interested in history may become engaged in a particular lesson based onthe teacher’s presentation style (e.g., a character re-enactment), the learningenvironment (e.g., a field trip to a historical location), or the teaching strategy(e.g., a debate with classmates). As Schlechty (2002) and Brewster and Fager(2000) pointed out, the teacher can influence the level of student engagementthrough the instructional decisions he or she makes.
Engagement with technology is the extent to which students are mo-tivated by the technological aspects of the learning task. Students who arenot motivated by the content or the learning activity designed by the teachermay be engaged with the technology they are using to complete their task.For example, when using PrimaryAccess Storyboard, engagement with tech-nology could manifest itself as time spent on a certain task, the number offrames in a student’s storyboard, the number of resources used, the numberof revisions made, or the frequency of accessing the storyboard tool.
METHODS
A qualitative research design was employed for this study. This design facil-itated the detailed investigation of the characteristics of engagement amongthe students. Using observation, interview, and student artifact analysis, Iidentified manifestations of student engagement and developed profiles forstudent engagement with the historical storyboarding activities. The qualita-tive data were inductively analyzed using a case study design.
The driving question guiding this inquiry was: How is engagement man-ifested in middle school students who use PrimaryAccess Storyboard for anhistorical inquiry activity?
DATA SOURCES
The study involved two sixth-grade history teachers—Teacher A and TeacherB—and their students. The study spanned two instructional units, one on thecauses of the Civil War and one on the effect of the Civil War on soldiers,women, and slaves. Teacher A’s class created storyboards during the firstunit, and Teacher B’s students used the tool about two weeks later duringthe second unit.
The qualitative design was comprised of student observations, documentanalysis of student artifacts, and interviews. Student engagement during thelearning tasks was observed using two separate instruments: the student en-gagement constructs from the Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS;La Paro, Pianta, & Stuhlman, 2004) and student activity logs recorded on thehost server while students were using the storyboard tool. Each student’sstoryboard was then analyzed based on various characteristics, such as the
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f B
oras
] at
06:
43 0
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
Digital Media and Student Engagement 159
level of detail, extra effort, and evidence of higher order thinking. Higherorder thinking was analyzed using a detailed rubric (Kansas State Board ofEducation, 2008), which was based on the cognitive domains obtained fromBloom’s Revised Taxonomy of Learning Objectives (Anderson, Krathwohl,& Bloom, 2001). Storyboards were scored on a scale of 0–12 in each of thecognitive domains, with 12 being the highest overall rating.
RESULTS
Manifestations of Student Engagement
Based on the data, student engagement was manifested in three ways: timeon task, level of detail using storyboard elements, and higher order thinkingand creativity.
TIME ON TASK
Students were monitored using the server hosting PrimaryAccess Storyboard,which included the amount of time the students were logged into theiraccounts. Each class was given approximately 70 minutes to work on theirstoryboards, which was the majority of their 80-minute block on the classschedule. Table 1 shows the average number of minutes spent on task forthe storyboard and essay groups during Units 1 and 2.
STORYBOARD ELEMENTS
In addition to time on task with the two different student activities, eachstoryboard was analyzed for the amount of detail added by learners. Studentshad the option of adding animated characters, props, images, and speechbubbles to their storyboards, and each of those categories has several optionsfrom which to choose. The learning activity was open ended and did notrequire students to add any specific number of objects to their projects. Each
TABLE 1 Average Time on Task in Minutes
Group N Mean STD
Unit 1 Storyboard 14 42.61 6.98Essay 17 37.39 11.57
Unit 2 Storyboard 17 62.65 8.08Essay 14 26.96 8.79
Note. Average amount of time spent on task for students in the Storyboard and Essay Groups duringUnits 1 and 2. Students were given approximately 70 minutes to complete their storyboard project. Class1 created storyboards for Unit 1 and essays for Unit 2. Class 2 created essays for Unit 1 and storyboardsfor Unit 2.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f B
oras
] at
06:
43 0
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
160 C. Alexander
TABLE 2 Average Number of Storyboard Elements
Group Class 1 Class 2
Scenes 5.4 6.4Images 5 5.2Props <1 1.6Actors 6.6 8.9
Note. Average number of storyboard elements included in projects by students inUnits 1 and 2. Scenes in this case would be the equivalent to blank backgroundon which students can add images and other elements.
item placed in the storyboard was completely voluntary and was based onthe students’ goals. Table 2 outlines the average number of items placed inthe storyboards by students during Units 1 and 2.
HIGHER ORDER THINKING AND CREATIVITY
In addition to the manifestations of student engagement that could be inven-toried, each storyboard was analyzed for evidence of higher order thinkingand creativity, using a detailed rubric (Appendix), and was then given anumeric score between 0 and 12. The higher the score, the more evidencethe project showed of higher order thinking and creativity. Table 3 displaysthe results of this analysis.
Patterns of Engagement
Data collected were analyzed for themes and patterns (Erickson, 1986),which led to the development of four engagement profiles. These cate-gories were based on observed behavior during the class sessions and datarecorded using the student activity logs.
Once the engagement profiles were established, data from observations,student artifacts, student activity logs, and interviews were analyzed induc-tively for themes and patterns of engagement and higher order thinkingwithin each category. The following descriptions summarize the characteris-tics of students in each of the engagement profiles (see Figure 2).
TABLE 3 Evidence of Higher Order Thinking
Project N Mean STD Project N Mean STD
Class 1 Storyboard 14 4.38 3.20 Essay 17 2.38 0.80Class 2 Storyboard 17 7.00 4.13 Essay 14 4.56 2.36
Note. Higher order thinking score based on a 12-point rubric (see Appendix). Both classes demonstrated,on average, more evidence of higher order thinking on the storyboard project than on the writing task.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f B
oras
] at
06:
43 0
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
Digital Media and Student Engagement 161
FIGURE 2 Student engagement profiles. A detailed matrix of the engagement profiles thatemerged from this study based on engagement with the technology and learning activity.Students were rated high or low on each domain.
CREATORS (HIGH TECH–HIGH TASK)
Students in this group creatively used the features of the storyboarding tocomplete the learning activity, as demonstrated by a strong narrative structurecombined with the blending of images and text to create a unique retellingof an historical event. The following student behaviors were observed duringthe activity:
• Demonstrated on-task behavior• Completed storyboard with consistent theme throughout each scene• Expressed great interest in the features of the storyboarding tool; demon-
strated high level of creativity• Performed a lot of manipulations of the storyboarding tool, most of which
were evident in the final product• Demonstrated a high level of content area knowledge
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f B
oras
] at
06:
43 0
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
162 C. Alexander
• Extended coverage of the curricular material beyond that called for in theessential questions
DECORATORS (HIGH TECH–LOW TASK)
Students in this group were engaged with the features of the storyboard-ing tool but primarily used the images as background decoration, and didnot extend their thinking beyond summarizing lecture notes. The followingstudent behaviors were observed during the activity:
• Demonstrated on-task behavior• Completed storyboard, but theme was not consistent throughout each
scene• Expressed great interest in the features of the storyboarding tool; demon-
strated high creativity• Performed a lot of manipulations of the storyboarding tool, many of which
were evident in the final product• Demonstrated content area knowledge, but with some factual errors• Demonstrated less interest in the content than in the technology by their
coverage of the curricular material in the storyboard
ANALYZERS (LOW TECH–HIGH TASK)
Students in this group expressed disinterest in the media-creation aspect ofthe project. However, they were engaged by researching and learning aboutthe historical event under study, and several of them indicated they wouldhave rather written an essay. During the activity students in this category
• Demonstrated on task, but not sustained, behavior• Completed storyboard, but relied on text to tell the story• Expressed little interest in the features of the storyboarding tool; low cre-
ativity• Performed as many manipulations with storyboarding tool as were neces-
sary to complete the assignment• Demonstrated content area knowledge• Interested in content, and expressed a desire to extend thinking beyond
the essential questions, if given proper guidance
AVOIDERS (LOW TECH–LOW TASK)
Students in this group were disengaged from both the learning activity andtechnology, and devoted considerable time to distracting behaviors:
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f B
oras
] at
06:
43 0
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
Digital Media and Student Engagement 163
TABLE 4 Comparison of Number of Objects in Storyboard Between Engagement Profiles
Profile Avoiders Creators Decorators Analyzers
Time using the tool 54.49 51.83 40.56 54.10Scenes 6 4 4 3Images 7 6 4 4Actors 11 7 4 3Props 7 6 4 4
Note. Comparison of the average time using the tool (in minutes) and number of objects (scenes, images,actors, and props) recorded for different engagement profiles.
• Demonstrated off-task behavior• Used the storyboard for entertainment rather than academic purposes• Expressed little interest in features of the storyboarding tool• Performed a lot of manipulations with the storyboard, but no evidence in
the final product• Demonstrated a lack of content area knowledge and did not actively seek
ways to improve• Demonstrated apathy toward content and unwilling to extend thinking
beyond the essential questions
Student time on task and productivity varied across engagement profiles(Table 4). Each class was given 60 minutes to complete the storyboardingproject, and the students utilized their class time in vastly different ways.Students in the High Tech/High Task group seem to have made the best useof their time, while students in the Low Tech/Low Task group spent just asmuch time using the tool, but their lack of productivity was reflected in theirfinal projects.
Within each of these engagement profiles, distinct patterns of higherorder thinking emerged among the student artifacts. Students in the creatorgroup typically adhered to a narrative theme throughout each scene, demon-strated high creativity, exhibited a high level of content area knowledge, andtheir coverage of the curricular material extended beyond that which wascalled for in the prompt. Students in the decorators group, despite theirinterest in the tool, had no consistent theme or narrative in their projects,and they tended to report factual errors or incomplete information in theircontent knowledge. These students typically copied or summarized mate-rial from their class notes and the writing prompt. Students in the analyzersgroup showed evidence of higher order thinking in some of the cognitivedomains, such as in their ability to discuss the prompt from multiple per-spectives and elaborate their ideas, but their use of the storyboarding toolwas basic and demonstrated low creativity. Students in the avoiders grouplisted random facts which were disassociated from their images, and most ofthem did not complete their projects within the allotted time.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f B
oras
] at
06:
43 0
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
164 C. Alexander
DISCUSSION
Based on time-on-task data alone, observations from this study would behighly encouraging to many classroom teachers. The prospect of taking agroup of students into the computer lab, or even bringing a set of laptopsinto the classroom, evokes feelings of intimidation, lack of control, and evenpanic among some teachers. Beyond the question of what to do if the tech-nology does not work properly, these teachers are left asking, “How do Ihandle students who finish early?” Planning technology-rich lessons for stu-dents is a challenge for even the most experienced teachers. In additionto the diversity that already exists in classrooms in terms of learning styles,ability levels, and personal backgrounds, the use of technology places eachstudent on yet another continuum—that of each student’s skill using com-puters. In fact, many teachers perceive their students as knowing more abouttechnology than they themselves know. How does one challenge a personwho is perceived to know more than the teacher? Therefore, the findingsfrom this study regarding time on task should be encouraging to teachers.
However, the standards for ambitious teaching and meaningful learn-ing far exceed the amount of time a student stays on task. Consider thosestudents from this study observed to be engaged with the technology, yetwho spent a large portion of their time adding decorations or altering fontcolor. As Berliner (1990) noted, getting the students to stay on task pro-vides a baseline for improved learning, but they must spend considerabletime engaged in activities that align with the learning objectives and providethe appropriate amount of challenge to motivate the students yet facilitatesuccess with the activity. Furthermore, research on educational game designindicates that, although almost all children are engaged by computer games,students differ drastically in the ways they are engaged by games, as well asthe types of games they prefer (Malone & Lepper, 1987). The same is truefor the storyboarding tool used for this study.
Findings from the observation data collected, the PrimaryAccess server,and the student interviews indicated that students in this study were engagedby different features of the tool and in different ways. The storyboardingactivity was open ended in order to establish an environment that wouldfoster student-led use of the tool. The instructions directed students to “tell astory with pictures,” then presented the essential questions to be answeredthrough the storyboard. What emerged were four distinct categories, or pro-files, of engagement with the storyboarding tool, and the analysis of thoseengagement profiles led to three conclusions.
First, the manner in which each student was engaged with the story-boarding tool and historical inquiry activity may have been a function ofeach student’s personal learning style and psychological investment than ofthe features provided by the tool or characteristics of the activity. This alignswith the research of Marks (2000), Bonfenbrenner (1979), Finn (1993), and
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f B
oras
] at
06:
43 0
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
Digital Media and Student Engagement 165
Newmann et al. (1992), in which engagement is conceptualized as a psycho-logical process that involves both affective and behavioral participation in thelearning process. For example, a common characteristic of the storyboardscreated by students in the creators category was the presence of a themecarried throughout the project. The storyboards would typically use the samecharacters in each scene, the storyboard would have a narrative structure, andthe characters were given identifiable roles to play (Figure 3). The end resultwas a set of storyboards set apart as exemplars, even though the teacherhad little to no influence on the manner in which the students approachedthe activity. Based on the current literature on engagement, the creators’engagement is manifested through their behavioral participation, but is alsodemonstrated through their psychological disposition, such as interest andeffort.
Conversely, students in the avoiders category finished the activityquickly and had substantial time remaining at the end of the class period.This was interpreted as a lack of engagement with the technology, yet it mayhave also been a function of those students’ learning styles and psychologicalpredispositions toward learning. Given five different activities employing fivedifferent tools, these students may have been consistently first to completethe activities.
In defense of the storyboarding tool, the students in the decoratorscategory clearly demonstrated a difference in engagement between the sto-ryboarding and essay activities. During the essay activity, they were engagedenough to complete the assignment, but it was not sustained throughoutthe activity and there seemed to be little personal motivation for producinghigh-quality work. However, during the storyboarding activity, these studentsstayed on task for a longer duration, made less disruptions, and, though theyoften struggled with knowing how to organize and present their storyboards,they made an effort at creating an original, interesting product. So, while eachstudent will bring his or her psychological predispositions into the learningenvironment, there may be traits of a certain tool or teaching method thatteacher’s can leverage for increased engagement. This affirms the findingsof Schlechty (2002), Brewster and Fager (2000), Bomia et al. (1997), andSkinner and Belmont (1993), who asserted that teachers can evoke engage-ment through the design of their instruction, the media used to convey in-formation (Brush & Saye, 2005), and the use of technology (Means & Olson,1997).
Second, the success of storyboard projects could be attributed to thedesign of the learning activities as much as it was to the technology. Thispractical implication from the study emerged from interviews with students inthe analyzer profile. These students enjoyed analyzing each historical imageand researching its background and context. They wanted to know where theimage was taken, whether the soldiers were from the Union or Confederatearmy, which battles the soldiers had fought in, and who the photographer
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f B
oras
] at
06:
43 0
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
166 C. Alexander
or artist was. For these students, this was the most engaging aspect of theproject. Of course, none of these investigations would have been possiblehad the teacher not provided these resources for the students. Additionally,the students had the freedom to interpret and synthesize the knowledge theygained from these images in a way that was meaningful to them. Each ofthese features of the learning activity was based on pedagogical decisionsmade by the teachers. Consequently, these students reported being muchmore interested in the analysis than they were making what they equatedwith an electronic “comic book.” In fact, they went so far as to expressdissatisfaction with the storyboard because there was not enough space inwhich to write as much as they wanted.
However, the comic-style layout is what engaged many of the studentsin the creators profile. From the interviews, they felt like they learned a lotfrom researching the images and discovering the context from which theywere created, but they also enjoyed putting that information into a uniqueproject that reflected their creativity and imagination. Many of these studentsused the characters, props, backgrounds, and speech bubbles to re-enacttime-travel field trips, school lessons, news reports, and film crews (seeFigure 3). For these students, it was both the analysis and project design thatmade the activity engaging. In the case of the analyzers and the creators, thedesign of the activity was just as important as the technology.
Third, the extent to which the students were engaged with thetechnology and activity may have been influenced by its novelty. Instudies involving other educational technologies introduced into a learn-ing environment—such as interactive whiteboards or computer-assistedinstruction—researchers observed a novelty effect, in which students in-creased their persistence and effort when using the novel innovation, whichled to increased learning gains in some cases (Clark & Sugrue, 2004). Overtime, these gains tend to diminish as students become more familiar with thetechnology. In the interviews, students often referred to the storyboardingtool as “fun,” “cool,” and “better than writing an essay.” Though the studentswere not asked to elaborate on their definitions of these terms, there is thepossibility their engagement and prolonged time on task were influencedby the introduction of a new technology into their history class. Perhapsgiven one or two more opportunities to use this tool, the students wouldfind even more creative ways to express their understanding. Alternatively,this tool could become tiresome and lose its appeal if used too often by theteacher.
Students clearly were engaged during the storyboarding activity, eitherby the tool, the activity, or both. However, the source of that engagementcould not be authoritatively attributed to the technology or the activity. Somestudents may have been naturally driven to be creative and persistent, whileothers may have had pre-existing inclinations to finish quickly or misbehave.So, while the presence of prolonged engagement among a majority of the
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f B
oras
] at
06:
43 0
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
Digital Media and Student Engagement 167
FIGURE 3 Examples of a student storyboard. Images captured from student projects usingPrimaryAccess Storyboard. Students researched the historical information behind the images,and used a variety of objects to create a historical visual narrative.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f B
oras
] at
06:
43 0
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
168 C. Alexander
FIGURE 4 Implications for planning technology-rich activities. Implications for planningtechnology-rich activities for students based on the four engagement profiles.
students was not in question, the source of and reasons for the engagementare not conclusive.
CONCLUSION
These findings suggest potential benefits could be attained through differ-ent instructional strategies designed to address the needs of students withdifferent engagement characteristics (see Figure 4). About half the studentswere engaged by both the technology and the task. These students oftencan benefit from extra challenges or extension activities that allow them toremain engaged. Students who are not engaged by the task but who areengaged by technology can benefit from structured scaffolding and clearproduct examples that ensure their work on the computer adheres to prod-uct and learning standards. Students who are engaged by the task but not bythe technology (about one quarter of the students) may benefit from alterna-tive project choices, such as writing an essay. Students who are not engagedby the task or technology need increased structure, assistance in managingworkflow, and clear expectations about end products.
There were three notable outcomes from this study. First, PrimaryAc-cess Storyboard allowed the teachers to integrate a media project into theregular pacing of their history classes without having to take time awayfrom something else. Second, most students used a majority of the classtime on their project. From a practical perspective, this means the differencebetween students working until it is time to transition to the next class oractivity and finishing with ample free time at the end of class, when many
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f B
oras
] at
06:
43 0
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
Digital Media and Student Engagement 169
disruptive classroom behaviors occur (Epstein, Atkins, Cullinan, Kutash, &Weaver, 2008).
Finally, data collected through student activity logs and class observa-tions were used to develop student profiles, which suggests that differentstudents not only are engaged by different aspects of technology-basedprojects, but they also acquire and express content knowledge in diverseways. While most students are engaged by projects involving technology,their engagement exists for different reasons and is manifested in differentways. Knowledge of these differences may help teachers plan, implement,and evaluate technology-based projects for student learning more effectively.
REFERENCES
Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., & Bloom, B. S. (2001). A taxonomy for learn-ing, teaching, and assessing: A revision of bloom’s taxonomy of educationalobjectives. Cranbury, NJ: Longman.
Arafeh, S., Levin, D., Rainie, L., & Lenhart, A. (2002, August 14). The digitaldisconnect: The widening gap between Internet-savvy students and theirschools. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2002/08/14/the-digital-disconnect-the-widening-gap-between-internet-savvy-students-and-their-schools/
Berliner, D. C. (1990). What’s all the fuss about instructional time? In M. Ben-Peretz,& R. Bromme (Eds.), The nature of time in schools: Theoretical concepts, prac-titioner perceptions (pp. 3–35). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Bomia, L., Beluzo, L., Demeester, D., Elander, K., Johnson, M., & Sheldon,B. (1997). The impact of teaching strategies on intrinsic motivation [Un-published manuscript]. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=ED418925.
Brewster, C., & Fager, J. (2000). Increasing student engagement and motivation:From time-on-task to homework. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional EducationalLaboratory.
Bridgeland, J. M., DiIulio, J., & Morison, K. B. (2006). The silent epidemic: Perspectivesof high school dropouts. Washington, DC: Civic Enterprises.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by na-ture and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Brush, T., & Saye, J. (2005). The effects of multimedia-supported problem-basedinquiry on student engagement, empathy, and assumptions about history. TheInterdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 2(1), 21–56.
Clark, R. E., & Sugrue, B. M. (2004). Research on instructional media, 1978–1988. InG. J. Anglin (Ed.), Instructional technology: Past, present, and future (2nd ed.,pp. 348–364). Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.
Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press.
Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., & Schiefele, U. (1998). Motivation to succeed. In N. Eisen-berg (Ed.), Social, emotional, and personality development in handbook of childpsychology (pp. 1017–1096). New York, NY: Wiley.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f B
oras
] at
06:
43 0
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
170 C. Alexander
Epstein, M., Atkins, M., Cullinan, D., Kutash, K., & Weaver, R. (2008). Reducingbehavior problems in the elementary classroom: A practice guide (NCEE #2008-012). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and RegionalAssistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Re-trieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/PracticeGuide.aspx?sid=4
Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. Wittrock(Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 119–161). New York, NY:Macmillan.
Ferdig, R. E. (2006). Assessing technologies for teaching and learning: Understandingthe importance of technological pedagogical content knowledge. British Journalof Educational Technology, 37(5), 749–760.
Finn, J. D. (1993). School engagement & students at risk. Washington, DC: NationalCenter for Education Statistics.
Frick, R. W. (1992). Interestingness. British Journal of Psychology, 83(1), 113–128.Hastings, R. P., & Bham, M. S. (2003). The relationship between student behaviour
patterns and teacher burnout. School Psychology International, 24(1), 115–127.Heafner, T. (2004). Using technology to motivate students to learn social stud-
ies. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 4(1), 42–53.Hofer, M., & Swan, K. O. (2006). Standards, firewalls, and general classroom may-
hem: Implementing student-centered technology projects in the elementaryclassroom. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 7(2),42–58.
Ioannou, A., Brown, S. W., Hannafin, R. D., & Boyer, M. A. (2009). Can multimediamake kids care about social studies? The GlobalEd problem-based learningsimulation. Computers in the Schools, 26(1), 63–81.
Kansas State Department of Education. (2008). Effective practices for gifted educationin Kansas. Retrieved from http://www.adifferentplace.org/higherorderthinking.htm.
La Paro, K. M., Pianta, R. C., & Stuhlman, M. (2004). The classroom assessment scor-ing system: Findings from the prekindergarten year. Elementary School Journal,104, 410–426.
Lenhart, A., & Madden, M. (2005, November 2). Teen content creators and con-sumers. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2005/11/02/teen-content-creators-and-consumers/
Malone, T. W., & Lepper, M. R. (1987). Making learning fun: A taxonomy of intrinsicmotivations for learning. In R. E. Snow & M. J. Farr (Eds.), Aptitude, learningand instruction (vol. 3, pp. 223–253). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Marks, H. M. (2000). Student engagement in instructional activity: Patterns in theelementary, middle, and high school years. American Educational ResearchJournal, 37(1), 153–184.
Martorella, P. H. (1997). Technology and the social studies—Or: Which way to thesleeping giant? Theory and Research in Social Education, 25, 511–514.
Means, B., & Olson, K. (1997). Technology & education reform: Studies of educationreform. Darby, PA: DIANE.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowl-edge: A framework for teacher knowledge. The Teachers College Record, 108,1017–1054.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f B
oras
] at
06:
43 0
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
Digital Media and Student Engagement 171
Murphy, P. K., & Alexander, P. A. (2000). A motivated exploration of motivationterminology. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 3–53.
Newmann, F. M., & Wehlage, G. G. (1993). Five standards of authentic instruction.Educational Leadership, 50, 8–12.
Newmann, F. M., Wehlage, G. G., & Lamborn, S. D. (1992). The significance andsources of student engagement. In F. M. Newmann (Ed.), Student engagementand achievement in American secondary schools (pp. 11–39). New York, NY:Teachers College Press.
Oppenheimer, T. (2003). The flickering mind: The false promise of technology in theclassroom and how learning can be saved. New York, NY: Random House.
Renninger, K. A. (1992). Individual interest and development: Implications for theoryand practice. In K. A. Renninger, S. Hidi, & A. Krapp (Eds.), The role of interestin learning and development (pp. 361–395). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Renninger, K. A. (2000). Individual interest and its implications for understandingintrinsic motivation. In C. Sansone & J. M. Harackiewicz (Eds.), Intrinsic motiva-tion: Controversies and new directions (pp. 373–404). New York, NY: AcademicPress.
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.Salomon, G. (Ed.). (1993). Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational
considerations [Foreword]. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Schiefele, U. (1991). Interest, learning, and motivation. Educational Psycholo-
gist, 26(3–4), 299–323.Schlechty, P. C. (2002). Working on the work. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundation for a new reform. Harvard
Educational Review, 57(1), 1–21.Shulman, L., & Grossman, P. (1988). The intern teacher casebook. San Francisco, CA:
Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and Development.Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal
effects of teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year.Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 571–581.
Thompson, A. D. (2007). TPCK: A new direction for technology in teacher educationprograms. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 23(3), 78–80.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms.Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.
van Hover, S. D., & Pierce, E. (2006). “Next year will be different:" Two first-yearhistory teachers’ perceptions of the impact of Virginia’s accountability reformon their instructional decision-making. Journal of Social Studies Research, 30(2),38–50.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f B
oras
] at
06:
43 0
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
172 C. Alexander
APPENDIX
Rubric for Higher Order Thinking Evaluation
2 1 0
Knowledge Numerous facts anddetails are recalled;answer is thorough
Sufficient amount offacts are recalled;answer is completeand acceptable
Limited amount ofinformation is recalled;answer is incomplete
Understanding An interrelated, holisticinterpretation of literaland implied contentgiven; uses examplesand illustrations tosupport
Overall understandingof content; impliedcontent/issues notaddressed
Brief explanation ofcontent; little or noevidence to support
Application Project has a “newslant”; supportsproject with anabundant amount offacts and details
Project is supported byan adequate numberof generalizations andprinciples
Project has none or alimited number ofelements to support;project is not workable
Analysis Project classifieselements, theirrelationship to eachother while identifyingthe arrangement andstructure connectingthem in a rational andpersuasive way
Project demonstrates therelation and structurebetween elements;recognizes patterns;rationally supported
Project shows minimalclassification ofelements; no relationbetween elements andtheir relation andstructure to each other
Evaluation Judgments are based ona variety of facets atboth the cognitive andaffective levels
Judgments are on bothcognitive and affectivelevels; based on givencriteria or selectedremembered criteria
Judgments have little orno support
Creation Project effectivelymerges a variety ofobjects, information,and interpretation tocomplete a uniqueproduct; a consistenttheme is followedthroughout the project
Project includes someobjects, information,and interpretation;theme is notconsistent throughoutthe project
Project does not includea variety of objects, orit lacks interpretation;no theme is evident
© Mountain Brook Schools. Adapted by permission of Mountain Brook Schools. Permission to reuse mustbe obtained from the rightsholder.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f B
oras
] at
06:
43 0
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
