Abstract
This chapter explains a systematic way of conducting process evaluation of pen-based digital media-making projects using system dynamics modeling. The study aimed to understand student and teacher experiences and changes in behavior while engaged in the digital media-making process. Data was collected at a pen-based digital media-making summer program held at Pepperdine University’s Los Angeles and Ventura County campuses. After transcribing and coding raw data using grounded theory, the authors generated causal loop maps. The study indicated that the production of videos depends on both the students’ and teachers’ engagement in the digital media-making process. Active engagement of teachers and students improved the quality of the learning environment. The use of system dynamics allowed us to see the flaws and unique aspects within the digital making process.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Chi MT (2000) Self-explaining expository texts: the dual processes of generating inferences and repairing mental models. Adv Instr Psychol 5:161–238
Cook-Sather A (2006) Change based on what students say: preparing teachers for a paradoxical model of leadership. Int J Lead Educ 9(4):345–358
Crippen KJ, Earl BL (2007) The impact of web-based worked examples and self-explanation on performance, problem solving, and self-efficacy. Comput Educ 49(3):809–821
Cuban L, Kirkpatrick H, Peck C (2001) High access and low use of technologies in high school classrooms: explaining an apparent paradox. Am Educ Res J 38(4):813–834
Davis EA (2003) Prompting middle school science students for productive reflection: generic and directed prompts. J Learn Sci 12(1):91–142
Dyehouse M, Bennett D, Harbor J, Childress A, Dark M (2009) A comparison of linear and systems thinking approaches for program evaluation illustrated using the Indiana interdisciplinary GK-12. Eval Program Plan 32(3):187–196
Gholson B, Craig SD (2006) Promoting constructive activities that support vicarious learning during computer-based instruction. Educ Psychol Rev 18(2):119–139
Glaser B, Strauss A (1967) The discovery grounded theory: strategies for qualitative inquiry. Aldin, Chicago
Hamilton ER (2013) Finding creativity and flow in a high-stakes assessment context. Ir Educ Stud 32(1):109–117
Hesse-Biber S, Dupuis P, Kinder TS (1991) Hyperresearch: a computer program for the analysis of qualitative data with an emphasis on hypothesis testing and multimedia analysis. Qual Sociol 14(4):289–306
Hirsch GB, Levine R, Miller RL (2007) Using system dynamics modeling to understand the impact of social change initiatives. Am J Community Psychol 39(3–4):239–253
Hovmand PS, Gillespie DF (2010) Implementation of evidence-based practice and organizational performance. J Behav Health Serv Res 37(1):79–94
Jawaharlal M (2011) Why is STEM boring? [Blog Post]. Accessed 4 Jan 2016
Kim H, Andersen DF (2012) Building confidence in causal maps generated from purposive text data: mapping transcripts of the federal reserve. Syst Dyn Rev 28(4):311–328
Kopainsky B, Luna-Reyes LF (2008) Closing the loop: promoting synergies with other theory building approaches to improve system dynamics practice. Syst Res Behav Sci 25(4):471–486
Lewis C, Causey L (2015) Critical engagement through digital media production. New directions in teaching english: reimagining teaching, teacher education, and research. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, p 123
O’Neil HF, Chung GK, Kerr D, Vendlinski TP, Buschang RE, Mayer RE (2014) Adding self-explanation prompts to an educational computer game. Comput Hum Behav 30:23–28
Prinsen G, Nijhof S (2015) Between logframes and theory of change: reviewing debates and a practical experience. Dev Prac 25(2). doi:10.1080/09614524.2015.1003532
Qureshi MA, Stormyhr E (2012) Group dynamics and peer-tutoring a pedagogical tool for learning in higher education. Int Educ Stud 5(2):118. doi:10.5539/ies.v5n2p118
Roberts N (1976) The structure of student-teacher interaction in the elementary classroom. In: Levin G, Roberts EB (eds) The dynamics of human service delivery. Ballinger Publishing Company, Cambridge, pp 93–103
Rogers PJ, Weiss CH (2007) Theory-based evaluation: reflections ten years on: theory-based evaluation: past, present, and future. New Dir Eval 2007(114):63–81
Roscoe RD (2014) Self-monitoring and knowledge-building in learning by teaching. Instr Sci 42(3):327–351
Roscoe RD, Chi MT (2007) Understanding tutor learning: knowledge-building and knowledge-telling in peer tutors explanations and questions. Rev Educ Res 77(4):534–574
Roscoe RD, Chi MT (2008) Tutor learning: the role of explaining and responding to questions. Instr Sci 36(4):321–350
Strauss A, Corbin J (1998) Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. SAGE, Thousand Oaks
Wood R, Bandura A (1989) Social cognitive theory of organizational management. Acad Manag Rev 14(3):361–384
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge the generous support of the United States National Science Foundation, as well as the schools that participated in media-making projects.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Okumu, M., Kato, H., Chalise, N. (2016). A System Dynamics Approach to Process Evaluation of Pen-Based Digital Media-Making Projects. In: Hammond, T., Valentine, S., Adler, A. (eds) Revolutionizing Education with Digital Ink. Human–Computer Interaction Series. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31193-7_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31193-7_14
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-31191-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-31193-7
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)