Evaluation of Production Model for Digital Storytelling via Educational Comics

  • Farah Nadia AzmanEmail author
  • Syamsul Bahrin Zaibon
  • Norshuhada Shiratuddin
  • Mohamad Lutfi Dolhalit
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems book series (LNNS, volume 67)


The paradigm of Education 4.0 empowers learners to produce innovations, the follow-on substantiations of knowledge production in a form of learner-generated content. Originated from this trend, there are a growing number of Digital Storytelling online platforms that grant learners interactive tools for producing educational comics. Thus, a conceptual production model of learner-generated comic is proposed to serve as a guideline for learners to design and develop digital educational comics. To evaluate the quality of the proposed model, experimental testing is carried out where participants quantitatively rate their experience of using the model. Nonparametric findings from statistical test disclose that the proposed production model learner-generated comic is significantly generalizable, flexible, complete, usable, and understandable. Therefore, results conclude that the production model for learner-generated comic has significantly served as guideline for learners to design and develop digital educational comics.


Educational comic Digital Storytelling Learner-generated content Media production 



All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee. The authors would like to express our high gratitude to the Center for Advanced Computing Technology (C-ACT) and Centre for Research and Innovation Management (CRIM) Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka (UTeM) for funding this paper via an internal grant (Ref. No: PJP/2018/FTMK(5D)/S01633). The highest appreciation also goes to Universiti Utara Malaysia for supporting the data collection. The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Harkins AM (2018) Leapfrog principles and practices: core components of education 3.0 and 4.0. Futures Res Q 24(1):19–31Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sener J (2007) In search of student-generated content in online education. E-Mentor 4:1–8Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Schuster K, Groß K, Vossen R, Richert A, Jeschke S (2016) Preparing for industry 4.0–collaborative virtual learning environments in engineering education. In: Automation, communication and cybernetics in science and engineering 2015/2016. Springer International Publishing, pp 417–427Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    De Jong T, Van Joolingen WR, Giemza A, Girault I, Hoppe U, Kindermann J, Van Der Zanden M (2010) Learning by creating and exchanging objects: the SCY experience. Br J Educ Technol 41(16):909–921CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tsai CW, Shen PD, Lu YJ (2015) The effects of problem-based learning with flipped classroom on elementary students’ computing skills: a case study of the production of ebooks. Int J Inf Commun Technol Educ (IJICTE) 11:32–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chang Chi-Cheng, Liang Chaoyun, Tseng Kuo-Hung, Tseng Ju-Shih (2014) Using e-portfolios to elevate knowledge amassment among university students. Comput Educ 72:187–195. Scholar
  7. 7.
    Baytak Ahmet, Land Susan M, Smith Brian K (2011) Children as educational computer game designers: an exploratory study. Turk Online J Educ Technol-TOJET 10(4):84–92Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Omar Hanan, Khan Saad A, Toh Chooi G (2013) Structured student-generated videos for first-year students at a dental school in Malaysia. J Dent Educ 77(5):640–647Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Johnson CG (2008) Student-generated podcasts for learning and assessment. In: Proceedings of the 8th international conference on computing education research. ACM, pp 84–87.
  10. 10.
    Chang H-Y, Quintana C (2006) Student-generated animations: supporting middle school students’ visualization, interpretation and reasoning of chemical phenomena. In: Proceedings of the 7th international conference on learning sciences. International Society of the Learning Sciences, pp 71–77Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Howell Emily, Reinking David, Kaminski Rebecca (2015) Writing as creative design: constructing multimodal arguments in a multiliteracies framework. J Literacy Technol 16(1):2–36Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schwarz C, Reiser B, Fortus D, Shwartz Y, Acher A, Davis B, Hug B (2009) Models: defining a learning progression for scientific modeling. In: Learning progression in science (LeaPS) conference, Iowa City, IA, USAGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Vassilikopoulou M, Retalis S, Nezi M, Boloudakis M (2011) Pilot use of digital educational comics in language teaching. Educ Media Int 48(2):115–126. Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schäfer L, Valle C, Prinz W (2004) Group storytelling for team awareness and entertainment. In: Proceedings of the third Nordic conference on Human-computer interaction. ACM, pp 441–444Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Suwardy Themin, Pan Gary, Seow Poh-Sun (2013) Using digital storytelling to engage student learning. Acc Educ 22(2):109–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Stewart Kristian D (2017) Classrooms as ‘safe houses’? The ethical and emotional implications of digital storytelling in a university writing classroom. Crit Stud Teach Learn 5(1):85–102Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schuck Sandy, Kearney Matthew (2006) Capturing learning through student-generated digital video. Aust Educ Comput 21(1):15–20Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bratitsis T (2017) Contextualized educators’ training: the case of digital storytelling. In: Research on e-learning and ICT in education. Springer, Cham, pp 31–43Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Robin B (2006) The educational uses of digital storytelling. In: Society for information technology & teacher education international conference. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), pp 709–716Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Smeda Najat, Dakich Eva, Sharda Nalin (2014) The effectiveness of digital storytelling in the classrooms: a comprehensive study. Smart Learn Environ 1(1):6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gakhar S, Thompson A (2007) Digital storytelling: engaging, communicating, and collaborating. In: Society for information technology & teacher education international conference. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), pp 607–612Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Azman FN, Zaibon SB, Shiratuddin N (2015) Modelling learner-generated comic production: an initial design. J Eng Appl Sci 13, 2237–2241. Springer, ChamGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Azman FN, Zaibon SB, Shiratuddin N (2018) A revised production model of learner-generated comic: validation through expert review. In: MATEC web of conferences, vol 150. EDP Sciences, p 05044Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sekaran U, Bougie R (2016) Research methods for business: a skill building approach. Wiley & SonsGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Peterson Robert A, Merunka Dwight R (2014) Convenience samples of college students and research reproducibility. J Bus Res 67(5):1035–1041CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Matook Sabine, Indulska Marta (2009) Improving the quality of process reference models: a quality function deployment-based approach. Decis Support Syst 47(1):60–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Syamsul Bahrin Z (2011) Mobile game-based learning (mGBL) engineering model. Ph.D. diss., Universiti Utara MalaysiaGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zaibon SB, Azman FN, Shiratuddin N (2018) Enhancing performance of student in web programming using digital educational comics. J Telecommun Electron Comput Eng (JTEC) 10(2–4):161–165Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Peffers K, Tuunanen T, Gengler CE, Rossi M, Hui W, Virtanen V, Bragge J (2006) The design science research process: a model for producing and presenting information systems research. In: Proceedings of the first international conference on design science research in information systems and technology (DESRIST 2006), pp 83–106. snGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Azman FN, Zaibon SB, Shiratuddin N (2016) Toward the development of an instrument to evaluate learner-generated comics. Int J Interact Digit Media 4(2):28–32Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ghasemi Asghar, Zahediasl Saleh (2012) Normality tests for statistical analysis: a guide for non-statisticians. Int J Endocrinol Metab 10(2):486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Zakaria Z, Hishamuddin Md (2001) Analisis data menggunakan SPSS Windows. Penerbit Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Melnick Steven A (1993) The effects of item grouping on the reliability and scale scores of an affective measure. Educ Psychol Measur 53(1):211–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Maes Ann, Poels Geert (2007) Evaluating quality of conceptual modelling scripts based on user perceptions. Data Knowl Eng 63(3):701–724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Shiratuddin N, Kuan TH (2014) Quality evaluation of a digital storytelling (DST) conceptual model. In: 2014 International conference on multimedia computing and systems (ICMCS). IEEE, pp 690–695Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Farah Nadia Azman
    • 1
    Email author
  • Syamsul Bahrin Zaibon
    • 1
  • Norshuhada Shiratuddin
    • 2
  • Mohamad Lutfi Dolhalit
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Information and Communication TechnologyUniversiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka, Hang Tuah JayaDurian Tunggal, MelakaMalaysia
  2. 2.School of Multimedia Technology and CommunicationUniversiti Utara MalaysiaKedahMalaysia

Personalised recommendations