Ellie presentation for digital story learning

Digital storytelling for enhancing studnets academic achievement, critical thinking, and learning motivation: A year-long exerimental study

Presenter: Ellie Lin Instructor: Teresa Hsu Date: Apr 27, 2015 1

2

Citation

Wu, W. C., & Yang, Y. T. (2011). Digital storytelling for enhancing student academic achievement, critical thinking, and learning motivation: A year-long experimental study. Computer & Education, 59, 339-352.

3

Contents

• Introduction

• Method

• Results and discussion

• Conclusion

• Reflection

4

Definition of terms

DST Digital storytelling

ITII Information technology

integrated instruction

Introduction

• Background• Digital storytelling (DST)• DST & academic achievement• DST & critical thinking• DST & learning motivation• Purpose of study• Research questions

5

Background

Digital stories allow opportunities for students control of the learning process and self-expression, fostering learning confidences, task value; and learning motivation.

(Wu & Yang, 2011 )

6

DST

Digital storytelling takes the ancient art of oral storytelling and engages a palette of technical tools to weave personal tales using images, graphics, music, and sound mixed together with the author’s own story voice.

(Porter, 2005)

7

DST & academic achievement

It has been demonstrated that an early stage of learning acquisition, academic achievement correlates positively with the oral behaviors of repeating, chanting and singing.

(Ellis, 1993; Gomez, Arai & Lowe, 1995; Schank, 1990; Tsou, 2003)

8

DST & critical thinking

With a critical theorizing process and reflection skills, storytellers should have deduction and interpretation skills to create dramatic digital stories in order to persuade their audience.

(Wu & Yang, 2011)

9

DST & learning motivation

Enhancing students’ motivation is always the key factor of leaning language. By offering meaningful curriculums, students can gain knowledge of task value and self-efficacy.

10

Purpose of study

To examine the comparison between digital

storytelling(DST) and information

technology integrated instruction(ITII) with

innovative technology strategies

11

Research questions

1. Will there be any difference in academic achievement between classes taught under different levels of ITII (lecture-type ITII and digital storytelling DST)?

2. Will there be any difference in critical thinking between classes taught under different levels of ITII (lecture-type ITII and DST)?

3. Will there be any difference in learning motivation between classes taught under different levels of ITII (lecture-type information technology integrated instruction ITII and DST)?

12

Method

• Participants

• Independent variable

• Dependent variable

• Research procedures

13

14

Participants

110 senior high school students

Entrance exam results below the national average

Two 10th grade English classes

Comparison group(ITLL) 56

Experimental group(DST) 54

The proportion of M & F is 1:2

Groups of seven

15

Independent variable

Content-based lectures

Paper-based homework/

tests

Occasionally engaged in group discussion

A short explanation of contents

Image, music, graphics, sounds, own voices

Group participated actively

ITII

DST

Independent variable

Table 1 Class activities and time allocation for the two levels of ITIIClass activities

Comparison group ( lecture-type ITII)

Time allocation

Experimental group (DST) Time allocation

Instruction Instructor provides leading Qs

5% Instructor provide leading Qs. 5%

Instructor presents course content with PPT & textbook.

75% Instructor presents course content with PPT & textbook.

5%

Student tasks Students collaborate on team work

10% Students collaborate on DST project (pre-production, production, post-production, & distribution

70%

Student presentations

Students present their team work

5% Students present their DST project & post it to the class blog, accessible for a global audience.

10%

Instructor provides feedback on students’ presentation

5% Whole class provides feedback for the DST presentations

10%

16

17

Dependent variable

Academic achievement in English

Critical thinking skills

Learning motivation

18

Dependent variable

Vocabulary

20 scores

Grammar

20

Listening

20Reading

20

Writing

100-word 0~5

ANENGLISH

ACHIEVEMENT TESTEAT

19

Dependent variable

Recognition of

assumption 5

Induction

5 scores

Deduction

5

Interpretation

5

Evaluation of

arguments 5THE

CRITICAL THINKING TEST-LEVEL Ӏ

CTT- Ӏ

20

Dependent variable

Task

Value

6 items

Self-efficacy

5 items

The motivation

strategies for learning

questionnaire

(MSLQ)

Research procedures

Duration 22 weeks

10-week lesson plan

& one class activity

Twice a week

45-min per

session

21

22

Comparison

Discussed questions from the textbook

Wrote a composition as collaborative homework

Presented their work with presentation software

Experiment

Collaboratively created digital stories

Encouraged groups’ contribution & participation

1. Course content 2. Instructor

3. Schedule 4.Examinations

Results & discussion

• Academic achievement in English

• Critical thinking

• Learning motivation

23


Table 4 Descriptive statistics for English academic achievement

EAT (maximum score

Comparison group Experimental group

Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest

M SD M SD Adj.M M SD M SD Adj.M

Vocabulary(20)

9.29 3.76 14.14 4.67 14.82 10.59 4.34 16.67 2.77 15.96

Grammar(20)

8.39 2.97 12.82 4.17 13.98 12.48 3.27 16.67 2.88 15.47

Listening(20)

12.05 5.46 9.73 5.43 10.29 10.65 5.32 14.26 4.99 13.68

Reading(20)

7.68 3.14 7.61 4.75 8.75 10.67 3.30 12.93 4.34 11.74

Writing(20)

3.14 4.40 1.76 4.03 2.35 8.86 6.08 11.29 4.72 10.68

Total score(100)

40.55 9.88 46.06 16.16 49.93 53.25 13.17 71.81 12.74 67.80

24

25


Table 5 ANCOVA summary table for English academic achievement

SV SS¹ Df MS¹ F p

Pretest EAT 5602.38 1.00 5602.38 34.50 .00*

Between (Group)

6727.71 1.00 6727.71 41.43 .00*

Within(Error)

17373.36 107.00 162.37

Total 420220.00 110.00

Corrected total

41194.10 109.00

*P < .05. A difference in EAT posttest scoresSignificant


ᴥTable 6 MANCOVA summary table for English academic achievementSV Df SSCP¹ Wilks¹⩘

Between 1 169.2456.6773.95149.13414.74

56.6718.9824.7649.94138.88

73.9524.7632.3165.17181.23

179.1349.9465.17131.41365.47

414.74138.88181.23365.471016.41

.62*

Covariance 5 274.82249.02238.81282.06153.22

249.02305.93305.36263.51130.66

238.81305.36366.88315.90118.64

282.06263.51315.90434.37206.21

153.22130.66118.64206..21162.04

.56*

Within 10 2666.54309.80380.18549.08307.15

309.801300.93648.07554.30385.94

380.18648.031031.34556.8466.12

549.08554.30556.811806.70337.14

307.15385.9466.12337.141910.26

*P < .05 26

Sig.

Posttest scores on the five subscales

1. Will there be any difference in academic achievement between classes taught under different levels of ITII (lecture-type ITII and DST)?

27


*P < .05

Table 7 Post hoc comparison for subscales of English academic achievement

Subscales Comparison of group

Mean difference

95% Confidence interval Direction of difference

Lower bound

Upper bound

Vocabulary E-C 1.14 -.70 2.98 E = C

Grammar E-C 1.49 -.15 3.13 E = C

Listening E-C 3.40* .76 6.04 E > C

Reading E-C 3.00* .82 5.17 E > C

Writing E-C 8.33* 6.10 10.56 E > C

Three subscales differed between two groupsSignificantly

Critical thinking

Table 8 Descriptive statistics for critical thinkingCTT-I (maximum score)




Recognition of assumption (5)

4.20 .82 4.30 .74 4.30 4.17 .72 4.33 .64 4.33

Induction (5) 3.86 1.09 4.00 .91 4.00 3.87 1.03 4.19 .85 4.19

Deduction (5) 4.14 .88 4.11 1.00 4.12 4.13 .87 4.33 .73 4.32

Interpretations (5)

3.32 1.18 3.46 1.22 3.42 3.02 1.16 3.83 .93 3.88

Evaluation of arguments (5)

2.48 1.13 2.48 1.25 2.46 2.17 1.09 3.28 1.12 3.30

Total score (25)

18.00 3.21 18.36 3.04 18.22 17.35 2.66 19.96 2.29 20.11

28

29

Critical thinking

Table 9 ANCOVA summary table for critical thinkingSV SS¹ Df MS¹ F p

Pretest 178.13 1.00 178.13 31.42 .00*

Between 96.77 1.00 96.77 17.07 .00*

Within 606..65 107.00 5.67

Total 41176.00 110.00

Corrected total

855.67 109.00

*P < .05

SignificantA difference in critical thinking scores between groups

ᴥTable 10 MANCOVA summary table for critical thinkingSV Df SSCP¹ Wilks¹

Between 1 .03.16.17.37.68

.16

.981.062.354.29

.171.061.142.534.60

.372.352.535.6410.26

.684.294.6010.2618.68

.85*

Covariance

5 7.387.424.053.584.32

7.4214.729.4714.369.51

4.059.479.178.893.19

3.5814.368.8926.219.74

4.329.513.199.7410.54

.53*

Within 103 44.462.25-4.875.532.43

2.2569.436.2010.325.71

-4.876.2074.1917.321.92

5.5310.3217.32101.2221.23

2.485.711.9221.23142.28

Critical thinking

*P < .05 30Posttest scores on the five subscales of CTT-I

2. Will there be any difference in critical thinking between classes taught under different levels of ITII (lecture-type ITII and DST)?

Sig.

31

Critical thinking

*P < .05

Table 11 Post hoc comparison for subscales of critical thinkingSubscales Comparison

of groupMean difference

95% Confidence interval Direction of difference

Lower bound

Upper bound

Recognition of assumptions

E-C .03 -.22 .28 E = C

Induction E-C .09 -.12 .51 E = C

Deduction E-C .21 -.12 .53 E > C

Interpretation E-C .46* .08 .84 E > C

Evaluation of arguments

E-C .84* .39 1.29 E > C

Two subscales differed between two groupsSignificantly

32

Learning motivation

*P < .05

Table 12 Descriptive statistics for learning motivationMSLQ (maximum score)




Task value (36)

26.23 4.05 25.09 4.54 25.67 28.54 3.37 29.43 3.83 28.83

Self-efficacy (30)

16.61 3.80 17.61 4.50 18.28 18.56 4.16 20.57 3.92 19.88

Total score (66)

42.84 6.72 42.70 7.90 44.01 47.09 6.20 50.00 6.80 48.64

The mean scores of the experimental group on both pre/post tests

33

Learning motivation

*P < .05

Table 13 ANCOVA summary table for learning motivationSV SS¹ Df MS¹ F p

Pretest 1791.16 1.00 1791.16 46.83 .00*

Between 530.50 1.00 530.50 13.87 .00*

Within 4092.68 107.00 38.25

Total 242971.00 110.00

Corrected total

7350.26 109.00

A difference in the total scores between two groupsSignificant

34

Learning motivation

*P < .05

ᴥTable 14 MANCOVA summary table for learning motivationSV Df SSCP¹ Wilks¹⩘

Between 1 246.81125.15

125.1563.46

.86*

Covariance 2 331.66389.60

389.60801.76

.52*

Within 106 1582.10632.16

632.161124.81

Posttest scores of the two subscales of MSLQ

3. Will there be any difference in learning motivation between classes taught under different levels of ITII (lecture-type ITII and DST)?

Sig.

35

Learning motivation

*P < .05

Table 15 Post hoc comparison of learning motivationSubscales Comparison

of groupsMean difference

95% Confidence interval

Direction of difference

Lower bound

Upperbound

Task value

E > 0 3.16* 1.62 4.70 E > 0

Self-efficacy

E > 0 1.60* .30 2.90 E > 0

Both subscales differed between two groupsSignificantly

ConclusionWith such the interesting and challenging

digital storytelling curriculum, students can

be profoundly impressed on their potential

capacity for language learning talent and

higher order thinking skills.

36

37

Reflection

Technology and language learning can form a combination to enhance one’s problem solving skills and higher level thinking abilities in order to survive the daily life.

38

Thank you

39

“ Have the courage to

follow your heart and

intuition. They somehow

know what you truly

want to become.”